The feminist witch hunt continues! Ophelia Benson and PZ Myers have caught me again being a sexist: Trolling through my Scientific American columns Ophelia discovered that in my October column I report on Leonard Mlodinow’s book Subliminal, in which he reports on studies that report on people’s report of how they feel about politicians based on various subliminal cues, one of which is the pitch of the voice, lower judged as more truthful than higher (although looks matter even more). Guess what? My reporting of Leonard’s reporting of the studies’ reporting of subjects’ reports makes ME a sexist! Wiiiiiiitch. Seriously. I couldn’t make this up (note PZ’s comment on my own voice!)

Go ahead and read the Butterflies & Wheels post that hurt Shermer’s feelings; nowhere does she accuse him of being a sexist. She does suggest that he seems oblivious to the fact that a bias favoring the authority of deeper voices is also going to be a bias against women, but it’s more an affirmation of his point that we have these unconscious prejudices.

As for my terrible, awful, evil comment: I pointed out that Shermer isn’t exactly a baritone himself. That wasn’t an accusation or an insult; I don’t have a deep voice, either. My point was that you don’t have to have a voice like a foghorn to be a leader.

It’s a truly delusional state he’s worked himself into, and now he’s seeing witch hunts with himself as the target everywhere he looks (probably abetted by those slime pit denizens who see every cross-eyed look and every criticism as a sign that someone is about to get shivved by the all-powerful FtB mafia, and flood twitter and blog comments with such knee-jerk reactions). It’s a shame.

But that’s not what’s got me curious. Notice what else he does? He uses “feminist” as an insult, a very common phenomenon. It has me mystified.

And if you read that facebook post, the comments are similar: mobs of people having fits over “feminists”, sounding like Republicans fretting over “communists”. Here’s a subset of the shorter complaints:

Also, don’t worry about moronic misandrists.
True feminists (those wanting equality and NOT superiority for women) do not behave like this.

Just look at what happened to Thunderf00t when he dared question the pseudo-feminist dogma.

The death of Hitchens and this feminist clusterfuck have ruined the Atheist community.

Skepticism (capital “A”) is over for me. The movement has been co-opted by people with an agenda. Sad.

Trying to creep feminism into the skeptic movement is total nonsense. Tea Party was bought out by social conservatives, Occupy Wall Street taken over by hippies, and now the skeptic AND atheist movement is being bought out by radical liberals. It’s a shame.

It is a shame that people like PZ Myers and his ilk are so quick to abandon reason when their feminist religion tells them what nonsense to spew.

This shit is getting really annoying. Please ban all those feminist morons from skeptic conferences. Its a dogmatic belief system not based on evidence, dismissive of evidence provided to them and generally pretty aggressive towards other people for no real reason. How can they call themselves skeptics?

(That one’s a favorite: a dogmatic, dismissive, aggressive comment declaring that you can’t be a true skeptic if you’re dogmatic, dismissive, and aggressive. Own goal!)

I have to laugh at this other non sequitur that popped up:

Pz lost his mind after he went vegetarian. I don’t know what Ophelia is thinking

Well, vegetarianism isn’t associated with insanity as far as I know, and also, little awkward fact, I’m not a vegetarian, although I have reduced my meat consumption.

But anyway, I started to realize something: I don’t understand how these people think at all — they’re completely alien. Regarding feminism with contempt is a bit like regarding science with contempt: it’s incomprehensible to me, and I’m wondering if they really understand what they are throwing away.

So let’s try an experiment. Let’s hear from some of these anti-feminists. I’d like them to comment here and explain themselves, and to do so a little more deeply than just reiterating dogmatic excuses. If you think feminism is a religion, explain why, and be specific. If you think feminism is unsupported by the evidence, explain what evidence opposes the principles of feminism. If you think it’s wrong for the skeptic movement to have a social agenda, explain what you think it should be doing that has no social implications.

Most importantly, if you think feminism, that is equality for men and women and opposition to cultural institutions that perpetuate inequities, is irrational, let’s see you explain your opposition rationally.

This could go a couple of ways: there could be dead silence as the anti-feminists wilt under pressure to honestly explain themselves, or there could be an eruption of the usual shrieking misogyny, or there might actually be a few who try to explain themselves. If it’s the latter, the rest of you behave yourselves — pretend you’ve got a cockroach under the microscope and try to probe it to figure out what makes it work, and don’t just try to crush it under the heel of your shoe, OK?

I’m a bit curious myself. I’ve had these sorts of conversations with creationists, and it’s always like wandering through an alien world; let’s try to figure out what weird things are going on inside the skulls of anti-feminists.

Such differences do not split along gender lines, and to force a gender line fit onto this situation generates absurdities and obscenities in equal measure.

You want to talk about South Africa? Let’s talk about South Africa. South Africa has the highest rate of rape reports in the world. 25% of men admit to having raped at least one person.

15% of reported rape victims are under 12. Baby rape is a thing. Yes. Babies. One high profile rape involved the gang rape of a 9-month old infant by 6 adult HIV+ men; she required surgery to reconstruct much of her body. But she was lucky, because many of these girls are literally raped to death.

40% of South African women are expected to be raped during their lifetimes, whereas 3.5% of men have been raped by another man. Yeah, great, a small percentage of people hold the vast majority of money and political power. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t huge power differentials among the rest of humanity.

Please, tell us more about South Africa and how it disproves the patriarchy.

Women were not allowed to fight for their country could just as easily (more easily) be described as women being considered more important in society and therefore being freed from this horrific obligation.

The flaw in this argument is that such an arrangement takes away power and agency from women. It’s like the notion that black people benefitted from slavery because their masters wouldn’t let something bad happen to their property. Being coddled away from choices isn’t privilege, dipshit, otherwise children would be the most powerful people in our society.

Fuck you.

Thus, eg, you have many extraordinarily wealthy and powerful women here (in world terms) claiming that some 17 year old boy who is forced to work 20 hours a day for virtually nothing to make her clothes is oppressing her – absurd and obscene.

Will Smith is rich, famous and admired, therefore black people are not oppressed.

@Nerd of Redhead
Just so you know, your views are not all that well regarded in academia. You can’t just pick up any (you can’t in fact pick up any) science journals and find the nonsense you trot out cited as fact. You assume it is for some strange reason, but you have not a shred of evidence to back it up. Just your silly opinions reinforced through hours/years spent in the company of others who also hold them. It’s a minority view for a reason – and the reason is that it’s largely shit.

@vaiyt
Yes, black people in the US are nothing like as oppressed as they were. Go back 150 years and you find almost no Will Smiths. Go back through history and you will always find, almost everywhere, significant numbers of powerful women. And the situation now for women, in liberal democracies, is even better. To try to liken your situation to that of an oppressed minority is obscene.

@1006: Do you have the evidence to show that? The “majority of academia” doing serious experiments on the matter find out there’s inequalities along gender lines. All else being equal, women are treated worse. The gender essentialist pseudoscientific babble that tries to justify apathy and prejudice is the fringe.

The doods who look at the statistics that show women in some countries reversing the domination of men in certain fields, then cry “SEXISM IS OVER! Now make me a sammich” aren’t part of academia.

@Improbable Joe
Speaking in generalities is the whole basis of feminism. The very name can’t even be said without it being a massive generality. And if we could, via means unknown, assess the power etc of every individual within society it would not split along gender lines in any way shape or form. The whole idea is founded on nonsense, even if some of the grievances happen to turn out to be legitimate.

Go back 150 years and you find almost no Will Smiths. Go back through history and you will always find, almost everywhere, significant numbers of powerful women.[Emphasis added]

Define “almost.”

Define “significant.”

Explain why “significant” numbers of powerful women makes up for women not having the right to vote, own property, attend institutions of higher learning, or bring law enforcement in to rectify a situation where assault has been committed against you.

Still trying to figure out if you’re stupid, lying, or most likely both. In case you’re just stupid, here’s a hint: you can’t make up your own definitions of words and argue from those false definitions. There’s no feminists saying the things you’re claiming, so you’re a fool or a liar or both.

To try to liken your situation to that of an oppressed minority is obscene.

Gee, and not one citation to show the oppressed minority is truly equal today, with equal pay, promotions, etc. What an abject loser if you don’t understand that you must show evidence to back up your claims, and every time you don’t your lies and bullshit are seen by all, including the lurkers.

Speaking in generalities is the whole basis of feminism.

No, it is the basis of misogynist bullshit. Where is your EVIDENCE to show otherwise. Poor pitiful liar and bullshitter….

Well, if your description of the power is split along gender lines (as is the case with feminism) then the 17 year old boy is part of the oppressor group and those women who benefit from his toil are part of the group who are oppressed by the group of which he is a fully fledged member.

Well, if you actually opined about the claims feminism makes, rather than your own jaundiced and specious misrepresentations, then people could actually engage you meaningfully.

(The actual claim is about a socio-cultural system and inequity of gender roles, not about men vs. women, and particularly not about all men vs. all women)

Such absurdities show why it is absurd to talk of power primarily in terms of gender.

Such absurdities show you as absurdly wrestling with your straw constructs.

Far better to just look and see who has the power, and if you do you will see that it is men and women who do and whole lot more men and women who don’t. Thus there is no real patriarchy as regards either earth, or any of those societies where feminism is prevalent.

Yes, why don’t you just look and see who has the power?

(Feel free to check on the political, the economic, the religious and the military spheres and report back)

@SallyStrange
Feminism is not regarded all that highly in academia. There are certain facts co-opted by feminists that are well established but the overall feminist ideology is not the mainstream view. If it was, then claims of a patriarchy would stand refuted by that fact alone.

@John Morales
When you say “the actual claim is about a socio-cultural system and inequity of gender roles”, yes, I know, and it’s farcical because it misses the 750 enormous elephants in the room and focuses on a few fleas which it misdescribes to suit its presuppositions. That’s why I think it does more harm than good by drawing attention away from genuine problems and focusing on misdescribed (now) irrelevancies.

When you say “the actual claim is about a socio-cultural system and inequity of gender roles”, yes, I know, and it’s farcical because it misses the 750 enormous elephants in the room and focuses on a few fleas which it misdescribes to suit its presuppositions.

Ah, now it all makes sense, because the dictionary does define patriarchy as a system of government. Which is how it’s used in anthropology, but of course, not feminism. Boy howdy, he sure showed us that the thing we weren’t talking about doesn’t exist!

And now to disprove atheism: Atheists believe that there are no gods (I mean, it’s right there in the word) and that’s silly because you can’t disprove a negative. So atheists are stupid. We can all go home now.

@Nepenthe
There may very well be academics here, but the point was not that that there are no feminist academics. The point is that feminism is not anything like the accepted position you falsely claim, and the main theoretical underpinnings/premises are not viewed as facts or anything like it.

Citation needed evidenceless liar and bullshitter, and SC might have something to say about you lack of truthfulness.

Anyway, I grow weary,

Code words for I have nothing but attitude and bullshit, and I’m not convincing anybody with my bullshitting.. Typical of suck losers. Claim victory, even though nobody is convinced, (more lies and bullshit), and run off with their tails between their legs.

lutherflint
What is your definition of ‘patriarchy’?
Type it out.
No cut/paste.
—-
Back when I was still in Academia*, studying anthropology, ‘patriarchy’ was never used to describe ‘a form of government’.
—–
*The People’s Front of Academia, not Popular Front of Academia (bastids)

… well? Maureen, eventually they are going to lose. The problem is that they’re so fucking irrational and unreasonable and LOUD that they’re not going to lose quietly or with dignity or without taking down as many people as possible on their way out.

I find it somewhat amusing (and irritating, and depressing) that, of all the things he could have gotten specific about, Lutherflint chose to attempt to get specific about his claim that Nerd’s views are not popular in academia. And, of course by “Nerd’s views,” it just turns out that he meant “feminism,” and he hasn’t presented a whit of evidence for feminism’s bad reputation in academe. Nor has he attempted to explain what this means, exactly–is feminism’s bad reputation justified? Or is this evidence that we need more feminism in the academic world, since most people are irrationally hostile to it, like Luther? Is this just a naked appeal to authority or what? Anyway, given his bad track record of understanding what feminism or patriarchy actually ARE, I’m skeptical of anything he claims about the reputation of either.

Just in case Lutherflint returns, this is real evidence Lutherflint that refutes your assinine assertion about lack of feminism in academia: Women’s studies at U. Maryland, U. Illinois, U. Michigan. funny how they all mention resources for feminism. Prove positive you are nothing but a posturing liar and bullshitter.

There are about 10 cats listed above. And even your list is full of cats – you just interpret them all as dogs because you’re looking at the world through little doggy spectacles.

You forgot the part about adding evidence and also the part about being specific about your claim. And do not dare try to weasel out of providing evidence since in this very post you admit that patriarchy is falsifiable (because if you didn’t you wouldn’t have claimed they were ALL cats :3).

Here’s one particularly catty cat: throughout history, at any given time, a small number of women (and a small number of men) have always had far more power than all the other men (and women) in that society. Thus to even talk of men and women in that context as real groups about which important points can be made about power, prestige, freedom etc, is ludicrous. Note how different that is from the situation involving, say, blacks in SA until recently, or blacks in the US 100+ years ago. Thus the idea that, for example, a Queen of England was (part of an) oppressed (group) and a male peasant in the field was (part of) an oppressor (group) is stretching things so far beyond breaking point as to be laughable – were it not so obscene. No such groups existed in the way, eg, such groups clearly existed re blacks/whites in the states mentioned above.

Again no evidence and no specifics. Which groups of women have always had more power than men? for how long? Are these matriarchal societies as endemic as patriarchal societies are? And more importantly, is our current culture a direct descendant of these matriarchies? If so then how much of the social norms present today come from these matriarchies? Also you seem to be bringing class-ism and racism into this for some odd reasons. As if the presence of a patriarchy eliminate other forms of oppression. Even among the peasants, women had less of a voice since they were treated as nothing more than baby making factories. And in the even darker times were sold as cattle.

You want to claim that at one time somewhere, a group of women held more power than men (without evidence mind you), and this means the use of patriarchy is meaningless? At the moment the most powerful man in this country is black, so is racism over?

No, not my coinage. God spare us from brocialists and manarchists, the doodz who can’t handle intersectionality.

@ Nerd –

Don’t worry, Luther was sufficiently vague that he left himself enough wiggle room to claim that he’s really right. He’ll say that women’s studies departments don’t count, because physicists think very little of feminists, or that the biology department doesn’t affirm women’s historical oppression, or something along those lines. Vagueness is everything when you’re bullshitting.

@ Logicalcat – I think LF is claiming that groups of people in power have always included women, therefore the theory of patriarchy is false, not that there were matriarchies. Like I mentioned before, he talks like a brocialist, one of those doodz who thinks that Marxist class analysis is the be-all and end-all of understanding oppression and rejects the entire idea of intersectionality. Who knows though, since he’s determined to avoid giving any specifics, it’s hard to tell what he’s saying anyhow.

I can state confidently that in my subject of study, females* hold all the power. Of course, the males are often nothing more than motile sacks of sperm, so that’s to be expected. Sometimes there are no males at all! They’ve all been exterminated!

Of course, since those males that do exist don’t have it as bad as Jews in Germany circa 1940, this doesn’t constitute a matriarchy, as per Luther.

*What do simultaneous hermaphrodites count as I wonder? Does protandry provide definitive proof of male oppression?

I will begin by asking you to define feminism and to define the standard feminist concepts of patriarchy theory, male privilege and rape culture. And more importantly, to do so in a way that can be appropriately applied to all those who are recognized as feminists. For exampl”e, the definition of feminism you have already provided does not work:

“Most importantly, if you think feminism, that is equality for men and women and opposition to cultural institutions that perpetuate inequities, is irrational, let’s see you explain your opposition rationally.”

Andrea Dworkin is recognized as a prominent feminist, with 11 books, many speaking engagements and even some supreme court testimony under the banner of feminism. SHE clearly was not interested in equality for men (and equality for women wasn’t enough for her). MacKinnon is another example where your definition doesn’t fit. So please provide a definition for feminism that is applicable to all feminists so we can have a discussion using a common understanding of the terms.

Most importantly, if you think feminism, that is equality for men and women and opposition to cultural institutions that perpetuate inequities, is irrational, let’s see you explain your opposition rationally.

markneil, did you know that all atheists are immoral murderous monsters because Stalin? Because Mao? Did you know that [ProminentAtheistOfYourChoice] speaks for every atheist everywhere on every issue? Because everybody knows that atheism MUST be a monolithic church with a Horseman-shaped Pope!

Oddly enough, the definition in the OP –

feminism, that is equality for men and women and opposition to cultural institutions that perpetuate inequities,

– is pretty much the working definition for most people around these parts.

So what’s your problem with it?

Funny, I seem to remember somebody waaaay back on the first page predicted exactly this OMGDworkin!!!! line … and here it is (again).

@Nerd. I already addressed that definition. If you can’t be bothered to even read my post, then why are you responding?

@Snoof I did not say their definition of feminism overwrites the definition given, I stated the definition given does not include them, therefore can not be correct. Are you seriously suggesting they can be prominent and influential feminists without conforming to the definition of a feminist? I likewise apply the same logic to those who claim feminism is a hate movement, as there are some feminists that actually do support men’s rights, such as iFeminists (though their support is by way of supporting the MRM, and wanting to work side by side with them), and because such feminists exist, feminism can not include being a hate movement as part of it’s definition, because it does not apply universally to all feminists., as a definition must.

@opposablethumbs You are attacking a strawman. I did not say all feminists are like dworkin, I said the definition of feminism given can not be applied to Dworkin, Dworkin is a feminist, so that definition is not correct.

“– is pretty much the working definition for most people around these parts.”

But it is not universally applicable to all feminists, so can not be “THE” definition of feminism. I’m asking for a universally applicable definition, that shouldn’t be so hard to provide for people calling themselves skeptics.

PS: Predicting Dworkin would come up is an easy call, but Doesn’t diminish her relevance. She remains a prominent feminist (radical, but still feminist), and you can’t simply dismiss that fact because it’s inconvenient. Cristina Hoff Sommers, Erin Pizzey, Warren Farrell, Camille Paglia, they all identified as feminist at one point too, but were driven out of the movement, and are now identified as anti-feminists for daring to speak up for men. If equality feminists can be ejected from the movement while the Dworkin/MacKinnon man-haters remain, don’t you think that says a great deal about the movement?

If equality feminists can be ejected from the movement while the Dworkin/MacKinnon man-haters remain, don’t you think that says a great deal about the movement?

Which is why PZ presentede his definition, and expects you to argue against it. MRA groups try to use the “extremist” example not used by a vast majority of feminists to demonize the movement. Exactly what you are trying to do. Where is your evidence against PZ’s definition. Put up or shut up.

@Nerd post 1065 To make that argument and stand by it is to state the definition is subjective. If feminism can not be universally defined, and must rely on the individuals perceptions of it, then why does only your definition count? Those who see feminism as a hate movement against men then justly have a reason to dislike it, and your definition of being about equality plays no part, because that is not their definition. The are opposed to what they see as a hate movement, and so your attacking them as being “against equality” based on a definition of feminism they do not share, becomes evidence of THEIR definition.

But if you want an honest discussion about why “I” despise feminism, we will first need a definition that works for those involved in the discussion, and “equality” does not work for me because of the aforementioned reason.

As to those asking why a definition of feminism must be applicable to all recognized, prominent feminists, and most certainly can’t be contradictory to their goals… well, I’ll point out that pretending inconvenient realities don’t exist and trying to hide them in order to maintain a flawed perception may be one example of why people don’t like feminism.

@vaiyt Stalin was an atheist, therefore any definition of atheism that doesn’t include worship of a Russian megalomaniac dictator is useless.

That’s not what I argued. But Stalin was an atheist, so any definition of atheism that stated atheism was utterly opposed to Russian megalomaniac dictatorships would likewise be wrong.

Several of you have tried to assert that my saying that Dworkin’s beliefs help us define what feminism is NOT is somehow trying to define what feminism IS. I have made no claims about what feminism IS, I leave that to you by providing a definition. I only point out what it is NOT and why, and it is NOT about equality because that is a belief not shared by all feminists. I don’t see why this is such a difficult concept for you people to grasp.

As to those asking why a definition of feminism must be applicable to all recognized, prominent feminists, and most certainly can’t be contradictory to their goals…

Actually, what I’m really asking is why you’re requiring feminism to include Andrea Dworkin and not, say, Ophelia Benson. Or Stephanie Zvan. Why have you decided that FtB-brand feminism doesn’t get folded under the feminist umbrella, but TERF does?

Why does the concept that there are multiple, mutually-contradictory definitions of feminism cause you to dismiss all of them? Does the fact that the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea c. AD 2012, the United States of America c. AD 1776, the United States of America c. AD 2012 and Athens c. 550 BC all have mutually contradictory definitions of “democracy” cause you to dismiss all of them? Why?

The OP is quite clear about which definition of feminism is being used: equality for men and women and opposition to cultural institutions that perpetuate inequities. If I called it “frungy” rather than “feminism”, would you be pro-frungy, anti-frungy or uninterested in frungy? Why?

In my view, you’re playing the same game. Someone who calls themself a feminist is for female supremacy, therefore all of feminism is wrong forever.

If you’re not arguing that, then what are you doing here? This is a thread for those opposed to the methods or goals of feminism AS DEFINED IN THE OP to present their arguments. It’s NOT a thread for pedantic clowns to endlessly argue semantics.

It is. You are arguing a strawman. For example, anything considered politically progressive, like national health insurance, can be hyperboled into “communism”, a red herring, as it isn’t communism per se. Likewise, you want an extreme version of feminism to argue against, as a reasonable definition, like “true equality”, is impossible for you to argue against. We know the technique, and you should cease using it.

I have made no claims about what feminism IS,

And until you do, you have nothing cogent to say on the subject, as feminism is by our definition “true equality”. You either argue against that, or shut the fuck up.

Because she is ALSO a feminist, so the definition must include her. It must also include Benson, Zvan, etc. I have stated it must be universally applicable. Seriously, tell me how feminism can mean equality, yet Dworkin can be opposed to equality and still remain a feminist? I am saying the definition must revolve around dworkins brand of feminism, I am saying it can not exclude her brand of feminism, no matter how inconvenient it may be for you to include it. How inconvenient it may be for you is not my problem, it’s yours.

“all have mutually contradictory definitions of “democracy” cause you to dismiss all of them?”

First off, the fact you would pretend that because the ruling parties name includes democratic, that the government is a democracy, is utterly dishonest. I know of no-one, including the north Koreans, who would describe their government as a democracy.

As to the rest, please explain what definition other than “A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.” applies to these that are contradictory to each other (or that definition)?

@vaiyt “Someone who calls themself a feminist is for female supremacy, therefore all of feminism is wrong forever.”

I’ve made no judgments on whether feminism is wrong or not, that’s your projecting things onto me, trying to anticipate some opposition. All I’m trying to get right now is a definition that can be universally applied to all feminists.

The fact you folks are unwilling or unable to do so is very revealing to the problems of feminism, and more important, the attacks against those who oppose it. After all, if you can’t even define it yourselves in a way that is honest and applicable to all feminists, then why should they accept the subjective definition you provide over their own subjective definition? And why shouldn’t they take offense to being attacked for having their own subjective definition that has just as much basis within the feminist movement as yours has (IE, you want to define yours by the good of feminism and pretend the bad doesn’t exist, They want to define feminism based on the bad and pretend the good doesn’t exist. why are you right and they are wrong?)?

“If you’re not arguing that, then what are you doing here?”

I’m trying to get an honest definition of feminism, or more specifically, pointing out that you are unwilling or unable to give one. I’m pointing out that your definition of feminism is entirely subjective, and it is therefore problematic to attack others for their subjective definition simply because it doesn’t match your own. I am pointing out the fact that when challenged to do so, accusations, lies and attacks are the standard response, rather than an honest attempt to work towards a mutually acceptable dialog. Isn’t this very behavior reason enough to dislike feminists? After all, all I’ve done is asked for a definition that is universally applicable, and look at the responses I’ve gotten.

@Nerd “…can be hyperboled…”

And if I was the one defining things, you “might” have a point… but I am simply asking for a universally acceptable definition of feminism. I’m not the one defining anything, so I can’t be hyperboling things into that definition.

“Likewise, you want an extreme version of feminism to argue against,”

Actually, what I wanted was a universally applicable definition, which would, of course, include the equality feminists.

“as a reasonable definition, like “true equality”, is impossible for you to argue against.”

Can I likewise say that you want “true equality” as a definition so that you can exclude the sociopaths like Dworkin and MacKinnon, because those are feminists you can not defend against? Is this just more projection on your part?

First off, the fact you would pretend that because the ruling parties name includes democratic, that the government is a democracy, is utterly dishonest. I know of no-one, including the north Koreans, who would describe their government as a democracy.

Because she [Dworkin] is ALSO a feminist, so the definition must include her.

I have made no claims about what feminism IS, I leave that to you by providing a definition.

These two statements are contradictory. You claim not to have a definition for feminism, and yet you’ve declared Andrea Dworkin to be a feminist, which requires a working definition. How is that possible?

I’ve made no judgments on whether feminism is wrong or not, that’s your projecting things onto me, trying to anticipate some opposition. All I’m trying to get right now is a definition that can be universally applied to all feminists.

You’ve had it since the OP liar. And you know that, which is where your lying comes in. It has been defined. What you are trying for is a strawman, and you know that. We don’t play your game. Either argue against our definition in the OP, or shut the fuck up.

Can I likewise say that you want “true equality” as a definition so that you can exclude the sociopaths like Dworkin and MacKinnon, because those are feminists you can not defend against?

We don’t have to defend anything, because the challenge is upon those who argue against feminism. What you need to prove, and will refuse to do, is provide conclusive evidence that the bloggers at FtB use any other definition of feminism. You are the one who must show that, as you are implying a claim that we don’t. Or, our definition is the one you must argue against. Where is your EVIDENCE?

This is a science blog. That means that all findings are provisional, until we re-run the experiment or someone devises a cleverer one. It also means that all definitions are working definitions, subject to modification in the light of evidence. You know what evidence is, don’t you? It is not boogiemen (or boogiewomen) stories to attempt to frighten the children into submission.

Now, what follows is not evidence. It is anecdotal. It may be of interest but it proves nothing. I have actually read vast chunks of both Dworkin and MacKinnon and I find myself entirely un-freaked-out by both of them. I am, though, perfectly happy to accept PZ’s working definition as the basis for general conversation and for this discussion.

You are only stuck at this imaginary definitional problem because that is where you want to be. You think it may be a defile at which you can block us. Think again!

No, they aren’t. I have made no judgement about what feminism IS, only of what it can not be. And it isn’t me who has defined Dworkin as a feminist, feminists themselves define her as such… usually relegating her to the radical variety, but feminist none-the-less.

As to equality, I am for it. As to your imaginary ideology of frungy, I see no problems with it at this time, but who knows what else will crop into the belief structure. Hell, I even support “SOME” feminists, but the feminist movement as a whole is not some monolithic entity that can all claim equality is a core tenet, because it does not apply throughout all of feminism. A core tenet must be core to all forms of feminism and equality isn’t, so it can not be the core.

@Nerd

“You’ve had it since the OP liar.”

No, I haven’t, and I’ve explained why already, many times. I’m not going to let you pretend the negative aspects of feminism don’t exist, because it is those negative aspects that are the cause of anti-feminism, and by letting you hide those away like they don’t exist, you immunize yourself from criticism based on that. As said above, feminism is not a monolithic entity. This argument is often used against the negative aspects, but it is likewise applicable to any positive aspects it may have as well. The shear dishonesty of trying to hide things that don’t fit your narrative and make it unavailable for criticism is one example of why people don’t trust, nor like feminism. You’re all proving the point adequately.

“It has been defined.”

But not in a manner that is universally applicable to all feminists. You ignore that criteria because, like Dworkin herself, it doesn’t suit your narrative and you’d rather pretend it was never there, but it is. Deal with it.

“Either argue against our definition in the OP, or shut the fuck up.”

This right here. Accept your reality or be silent. My own concerns, my own objections, they don’t matter. You don’t think this kind of attitude may turn some people away from feminism? Doesn’t matter that you don’t like it, Dworkin and MacKinnon and many more like them are all feminists, and they play very much into the perception of feminism. This is a discussion of why people don’t like feminism, and your refusal to acknowledge these hateful elements, and worst still, demanding others pretend they don’t exist ether, or “shut the fuck up” is a serious indicator of why people don’t like you.

usually relegating her to the radical variety, but feminist none-the-less.

Which is strawman argument. We have our definition in the OP. It is the one used here. Why are you ignoring that fact for your non-cogent derailing argument, full of sound and fury, and meaningless sophistry?

But not in a manner that is universally applicable to all feminists.

Yes it has. You haven’t shown that other feminists don’t fall under the definition. Just claimed it to be the case. Your lack of evidence speaks volumes for your lack of honesty and integrity.

My own concerns, my own objections, they don’t matter.

You haven’t shown your concerns are anything other than sophistry. You haven’t presented your own working definitions. Until you do, you use ours, or you don’t use any and fade into the bandwidth. Your OPINION of your concerns is irrelevant to us. Your concerns have been addressed.

markneil appears to dislike feminism because there are some individual feminists he doesn’t like; the existence of those individuals means the entire idea can be written off (or it is convenient to pretend so). Regardless of how vanishingly little those individuals can be said to represent the vast majority of people in the world today who consider themselves feminists.

feminism, that is equality for men and women and opposition to cultural institutions that perpetuate inequities,

That’s the definition. What’s wrong with it, and if there is nothing wrong with it why are you opposed to it?

PS Stalin died a few years ago now. What do we think of theists who insist (absolutely must insist, I tell you) that any real definition of atheism has to include – say for the sake of example – the tenet that all priests and indeed all religious believers must be forcibly deconverted or massacred? Do we really think they’re talking about any kind of atheism that exists in any significant fashion? Do we think that perhaps when they insist (simply must insist, I tell you) on focussing on these terrifying bogymen what they really want to do is derail the discussion of secularism? I wonder …

MN is playing the typical MRA game of expecting his OPINION to be taken more seriously than the evidence. Since he presents no evidence, his OPINION can and will be *POOF* dismissed per Christopher Hitchens: “That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”.

So let’s try an experiment. Let’s hear from some of these anti-frungists. I’d like them to comment here and explain themselves, and to do so a little more deeply than just reiterating dogmatic excuses. If you think frungy is a religion, explain why, and be specific. If you think frungy is unsupported by the evidence, explain what evidence opposes the principles of frungy.

Since you don’t oppose frungy, you have no need to continue posting! Well done.

The argument that markneil is spewing forth is based on the idea that feminism is a monolithic structure. But any feminist can tell you that this is bullshit. Just spend time in a meeting where, before anything can get done, much time is spent debating just different terms means.

And if we could, via means unknown, assess the power etc of every individual within society it would not split along gender lines in any way shape or form. The whole idea is founded on nonsense, even if some of the grievances happen to turn out to be legitimate.

“We can’t quantify this, but if we could I’d be right!”

Any difference between that and “All the lurkers secretly agree with me!”?

The fact you folks are unwilling or unable to do so is very revealing to the problems of feminism, and more important, the attacks against those who oppose it. After all, if you can’t even define it yourselves in a way that is honest and applicable to all feminists, then why should they accept the subjective definition you provide over their own subjective definition? And why shouldn’t they take offense to being attacked for having their own subjective definition that has just as much basis within the feminist movement as yours has (IE, you want to define yours by the good of feminism and pretend the bad doesn’t exist, They want to define feminism based on the bad and pretend the good doesn’t exist. why are you right and they are wrong?)?

“I can eat a chicken egg in ten seconds.”

*plops down an ostrich egg* “You can’t eat that in ten seconds!”

“Well, no, but that’s not a chicken egg, it’s an ostrich egg.”

“It’s still an egg, so your statement is false!”

“Um, I said exactly what I was talking about at the very beginning – I was talking about chicken eggs, and I was quite specific.”

“Why can’t you give me a definition of eggs that includes ostrich eggs, hmm?”

“I can, but that’s not the current discussion, see? We’re trying to talk about chicken eggs here.”

“AHA! I find it very telling that your definition of eggs fails to include things that everyone knows are eggs! VICTORY IS MINE!”

markneil: you are going to have to accept that there is no universal, one size fits all definition of feminism. Just like not every atheist defines atheism the same way. Not every person in a movement is going to define things the exact same way. Not every Christian defines their religion the same way. In all those cases, there exists a general widespread definition.
The overall accepted definition, as I have mentioned at least twice in this loooooong ass thread:

Feminism is a movement seeking full economic, social and political equality for women

You do realize that implicit in this definition is ‘equality for men’, no? You cannot have equality for women if men are unequal. Through the actions of feminists, the hope is to raise womens rights to the same level as mens, therefore making them equal.

I have a simple question for markneil. Is Feminism™ supportive of rights for transgendered people or against it.

(The question fits just about every other issue, be it economics, social backgrounds, racial identity and just about any other issue that affects women. Which is everything.[It took decades for mainstream feminism to become tolerant of lesbian feminists.])

SHE [Dworkin] clearly was not interested in equality for men (and equality for women wasn’t enough for her). MacKinnon is another example where your definition doesn’t fit.

Could you describe how you came to this conclusion? What particular works/statements etc. by Dworkin and MacKinnon led you to believe that they hate(d) men? (I’m sure that John Stoltenberg would have been surprised to find that Dworkin hated all men.)

you are going to have to accept that there is no universal, one size fits all definition of feminism

And yet, you expect me to accept your definition as if it is a universal, one size fits all definition:

Feminism is a movement seeking full economic, social and political equality for women

If there can not be a universally applicable definition, then the word is meaningless. But there is a tenet of feminism that is applicable throughout all forms of feminism, but that definition doesn’t automatically provide an “I win” against anyone who opposes feminism, so it is an unacceptable definition to many.

Just like not every atheist defines atheism the same way

But the core tenet “I do not believe in a god or gods” is consistent and fundamental to all forms of Atheism. Equality can not likewise be applied to all forms of feminism.

You do realize that implicit in this definition is ‘equality for men’, no?

And I’ve had the demand for evidence thrown at me, so please, show the evidence to support the claim that feminism supports equality for men. And tell me why, even if you can provide proof, the Andrea Dworkin, MacKinnon, etc should be ignored in favor of your definition? Do you realize you are demanding that people accept your reality of feminism and to ignore their own experiences with it? and My simply challenging this position has garnered a fair bit of hostility, simply for stating “but it doesn’t always apply”. I’ve pointed out feminism is not a monolithic entity, that the “feminism is about equality” definition can not be applied universally, and I have since been accused of assuming feminism is a monolithic entity because I apparently am trying to define it based on Andrea Dworkin (when I’m looking for a definition, not creating one myself). I’ve been accused of doing what those same accusers expect me to accept from them.

I have a simple question for markneil. Is Feminism™ supportive of rights for transgendered people or against it.

It nether supports nor opposes transgender issues. Some individual feminists support them, others oppose them, but the opinions on transgender rights are individual to each feminist, not some core tenet to the movement as a whole. Same applies to equality and opinions on men.

markneil:
When feminists speak of seeking equality, whom do you think they are trying to be equal TO?
Full political equality for women means full political equality for women in relation to…?

Full social equality for women means full social equality for women in relation to…?

How can you not understand that the fight for equality for women is in relation to men? Men have a lot of rights. Women have fewer. Women want the same rights as men. It really isn’t that hard.

Don’t think we are all so pink fluffy lady brained as to not notice you have come into a thread asking for reasoned support for your anti feminist stance and offered none. Your JAQing is being humored. Just barely. Get on with it.

It nether supports nor opposes transgender issues. Some individual feminists support them, others oppose them, but the opinions on transgender rights are individual to each feminist, not some core tenet to the movement as a whole. Same applies to equality and opinions on men.

I’m gathering from this thread that it’s not really possible to oppose equality for women without looking like an ass, so some people are trying to redefine feminism to mean female supremacy. Yeah, we’re all opposed to female supremacy (and unicorn dictatorships and other fictional problems). We’re also all feminists.

If you think feminism means female supremacy, well. You’re dumb. I’m sorry but there’s no other word for it. You’ve been duped by male supremacists.

That, or you are a male supremacist.

I reiterate the request for quotes and positions of Andrea Dworkin that make you think that Dworkin is a female supremacists who hates all men, marcneil. That’s called providing evidence to support your position. Your position is that Andrea Dworkin represents a challenge to feminists because she hates men and promotes female supremacy. Okay. I don’t think she does, but I haven’t read her much, despite being a feminist for well-nigh twenty years now. So. You claim that Dworkin hates men and promotes female supremacy on what basis? Go ahead.

show the evidence to support the claim that feminism supports equality for men.

Have you read the evidence supplied earlier in the thread? Did you even bother to read it before replying? Or is this just another manlyman misogynist crying “feed me” like a two-year-old hoping the adults either will show pity or be bored and go away.

This right here. Accept your reality or be silent. My own concerns, my own objections, they don’t matter. You don’t think this kind of attitude may turn some people away from feminism? Doesn’t matter that you don’t like it, Dworkin and MacKinnon and many more like them are all feminists, and they play very much into the perception of feminism. This is a discussion of why people don’t like feminism, and your refusal to acknowledge these hateful elements, and worst still, demanding others pretend they don’t exist ether, or “shut the fuck up” is a serious indicator of why people don’t like you.

So, this means people should treat you like you agree with Joseph Stalin in everything you do (unless you prove otherwise)?

That’s a definition I can work with… Define Patriarchy as it pertains to this definition (I did ask for the definition of patriarchy in my very first post, to be fair).

A government of people, by the men, for the men?

Howabout a system of authority in which men wield disproportionate power, and use aspects of that power to maintain the power imbalance.
Does that work for you? Pre-chewed sufficiently for your taste? Good enough for you to actually start trying to make some sort of point?

But the core tenet “I do not believe in a god or gods” is consistent and fundamental to all forms of Atheism.

Actually, detailed surveys of people’s religious beliefs generally find a certain percentage of self-described atheists who believe in God, and a certain percentage of self-described Christians who do not. This does not invalidate the accepted definitions of either atheism or Christianity – it just shows that people’s beliefs are not always consistent, nor do they always perfectly match their chosen descriptors.

Jefrir:
Thank you. Thats the point I was trying to make, but you worded it much better. Now maybe increase the font, italicize and double space so that mark can read it easier. Such a simple concept and he doesn’t get it.

Andrea Dworkin is recognized as a prominent feminist, with 11 books, many speaking engagements and even some supreme court testimony under the banner of feminism.

It is interesting that after markneil brings up Andrea Dworkin, and then claims this:

SHE clearly was not interested in equality for men (and equality for women wasn’t enough for her).

He does not deign to provide a SINGLE iota of evidence for that claim, not one, despite subsequent requests to do so, all of which he tellingly ignored.

He would later call her a “sociopath”, and once again, provide ZERO evidence to support that claim.

And indeed, it takes only the briefest of reviews (ie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Dworkin) for any rational person to conclude that while Dworkin was radical in her views, the radicality of those views had NOTHING to do with being “not interested in equality for men”, or with “equality for women not being enough”, but were instead predicated on the conception that women were not being treated as equals to men, but should be.

I look at markneil’s treatment of Dworkin on this thread and all I see is character assassination of the most pathetic and odious sort.

Nerd:
Markneil is rare all right.
He demands we give evidence and definitions to satisfy him before he will answer that challege in the OP. But even with a plethora of definitions in an 1100+ thread, as well as links in the sidebar, he keeps stepping up to bat empty handed.

You claim that Dworkin hates men and promotes female supremacy on what basis?

It seems like *e’s arguing with a straw-Dworkin. Dworkin had some views that were not part of what I suspect most feminists would characterize as the main-stream. Of course that raises the question “what was the main-stream of feminism”? At that time I recall Gloria Steinem but I was in high school then, when I first encountered the idea of feminism, and Steinem seemed to be carrying the flag forward. In my memory it seems that feminism became part of the national discussion in the late 60s/70s and then in the 80s we had what seems like the same kind of fragmentation that’s happening in atheism. No, these are not “deep rifts” they’re just slightly different interpretations of a complicated social issue, held by lots and lots of different individuals, a lot of whom make up the “main-stream” and some of whom make up the “fringe.” When Dworkin and McKinnon began their attacks against pornography, I remember discussions in which main-stream feminists put Dworkin on the fringe – a fringe she moved farther and farther out on over time. I am not saying that to dismiss her views; I mean that I less frequently encountered people unreservedly arguing her viewpoint, but that was perhaps just an effect of where I stood on the sidelines of the discussion. Or, perhaps it wasn’t.

It’s not going to show up in google because it’s all before the large-scale internet, but I imagine there were people wringing their hands about “deep rifts” in the feminist movement, back then.

What I am trying to imply is that, perhaps, pointing to Andrea Dworkin is not pointing to the main-stream of feminism, and therefore if one points to Dworkin they might be attempting to manipulate perceptions – in the same way that one might attempt to manipulate perceptions about atheism by characterizing Thunderf00t’s versus Christopher Hitchens. “An invidious comparison,” Hitch would say, were it involving other than himself.

The way to address these “deep rifts” claims is to try to keep one’s compass pointing toward the main-stream, if the main-stream is well-supported by rational argument. That’s why I’m so impressed by what PZ and many of the commenters here are doing: they are simply asking “why not social equality?” Bam. Full stop. It keeps you out of the weeds of whether or not a particular spokesperson for the movement is unusually surly, or confrontational, or perhaps accomodationist.

I think that, as the atheist “movement” continues to form and move forward along all of its different paths, we might find useful experiences from every other un-organized social cause. Doesn’t it sort of always work this way?

@Nepenthe –So easy to forget that Steinem is an un-fun anti-porn feminist too. I’m not sure that merely being anti-porn explains the marginalization of Dworkin et al.

Yep. Understood. I don’t think that Dworkin’s marginalization was just because of that and if my comment gave that impression, I was unclear.

Crap, I’m just realizing that I’m sounding like Alain De Botton or one of the accomodationist atheists. I was comfortable listening to Steinem but Dworkin’s anger triggered my privilege-shields raising and I dismissed her. :/ Yes, Dworkin was talking about rape culture (and so was Steinem!) Argh.

It happens. The more I think about it, the more it seems like Steinem has been rewarded with limited demonization (what a prize!) for generally working “within the system”, being politically active in the traditional senses, working on legislation and election campaigns, founding organizations focused on specific, concrete women’s issues, etc. Things that are awesome and advance feminism, but not too much that’s directly confronting men as a group or asking them to do anything.

markneil has left the thread but I’m going to summarize his views anyway:

He wants a universal definition of feminism which includes Andrea Dworkin. For some reason markneil has decided that Dworkin (who died some years ago) was anti-men. markneil offers no evidence to support this belief, apparently it’s one of those “everyone knows” things. Any definition of feminism which includes Dworkin cannot be summed up by “equality for men and women and opposition to cultural institutions that perpetuate inequities” because the straw-Dworkin which lies between his ears is against equality for men.

markneil is also concerned about the patriarchy but he flounced before he could express his doubts about the concept.

In short, markneil failed to rationally explain why he is against feminism. He is against certain feminists because he believes they are (or were) anti-men even though he has not given any evidence that these feminists actually are anti-men.

In short, markneil failed to rationally explain why he is against feminism. He is against certain feminists because he believes they are (or were) anti-men even though he has not given any evidence that these feminists actually are anti-men.

Gee, lets see who collects on the bets. Well, this is embarassing for MN, nobody thought he was right….

Like I said, I’ve never read much of Dworkin, and I don’t find that you really need to to be a feminist these days. But I am aware enough to know that her anti-rape and anti-pornography stances have been distorted into being anti-men and anti-sex.

Begin standard schpiel about criticizing feminism

There is one major criticism of feminism that should be made and heard by feminists: its historical tendency to privilege the concerns of white, straight, cis, able-bodied, middle-class women over every other type of woman. Much like Michael Shermer has a blind spot where women are concerned, the women who had the luxury to spearhead a movement for women’s rights were blind to the fact that women of color have to deal with sexism AND racism, disabled women have to deal with sexism AND ableism, homosexual women have to deal with sexism AND homophobia, and so on and so forth. It’s getting better, but there’s still lots of room for improvement.

End standard schpiel about criticizing feminism

If I were a devoted anti-feminist, and I were intelligent, and aware of my own biases as well as others’, I would exploit the hell out of this. I would criticize feminists non-stop for this, and it would be hard for them to answer it, because it would be true.

Interesting, then, that none of the folks who show up here even manage to mention this. I conclude, then, that the majority of people who don’t like feminism are so bogged down in their prejudices that they can’t even process that much complexity and still think straight.

I have a hard time imagining how it would feel to be that incapable of thinking. Like Spokesgay said to me earlier, my theory of mind kind of breaks down when it comes to people like this.

“In 1775, Thomas Jeremiah was one of fewer than five hundred “Free Negros” in South Carolina and, with an estimated worth of £1,000 (about $200,000 in today’s dollars), possibly the richest person of African descent in British North America. A slaveowner himself, Jeremiah was falsely accused by whites–who resented his success as a Charleston harbor pilot–of sowing insurrection among slaves at the behest of the British. Though a free man, Jeremiah was tried in a slave court and sentenced to death. J. William Harris tells Jeremiah’s story in full for the first time, illuminating the contradiction between a nation that would be born in a struggle for freedom and yet deny it to others. ”

(Vera summary of The hanging of Thomas Jeremiah : a free Black man’s encounter with liberty)

@markneil

Andrea Dworkin is recognized as a prominent feminist, with 11 books, many speaking engagements and even some supreme court testimony under the banner of feminism

By whom?

(Hint: The correct answer is “social conservatives” and not actually “modern feminists”, if her wikipedia article is anything to go by)

Are you seriously suggesting they can be prominent and influential feminists without conforming to the definition of a feminist?

I likewise apply the same logic to those who claim feminism is a hate movement, as there are some feminists that actually do support men’s rights, such as iFeminists (though their support is by way of supporting the MRM, and wanting to work side by side with them), and because such feminists exist, feminism can not include being a hate movement as part of it’s definition, because it does not apply universally to all feminists., as a definition must.

Hun, I don’t think you know how a dictionary works.

Or, I don’t know, terminology.

Let’s pull this example from biology. You know what a berry is right? It’s a fleshy fruit that’s the product of a single ovary, like a grape, or a tomato, or a banana. I don’t know what are these raspberries or blackberries you talk of; those aren’t berries, those are aggregate fruit.

Just as biologists use the term “berry” differently than your average English-speaker doesn’t mean that either term is wrong, per say. It’s that they have different definitions. And just because Dworkin considers herself to be a feminist doesn’t mean that we agree with her on everything.

Or maybe another example. If all people of a certain ideology believed in the same thing, Democrats would probably actually get shit done.

By the way – I swung around to the iFeminist webpage; first thing I saw was a bitcoins donation link; second the Ayn Rand links. I’m going to conclude “highly probably libertarian” and “totally not what ‘feminism’ means around here”.

From their site:

In every state, the portion of families where children have two parents, rather than one, has dropped significantly over the past decade. Even as the country added 160,000 families with children, the number of two-parent households decreased by 1.2 million. Fifteen million U.S. children, or 1 in 3, live without a father, and nearly 5 million live without a mother. In 1960, just 11 percent of American children lived in homes without fathers. America is awash in poverty, crime, drugs and other problems, but more than perhaps anything else, it all comes down to this, said Vincent DiCaro, vice president of the National Fatherhood Initiative: Deal with absent fathers, and the rest follows.

This is filed under “Father’s Rights”.

Wut.

Cristina Hoff Sommers, Erin Pizzey, Warren Farrell, Camille Paglia, they all identified as feminist at one point too, but were driven out of the movement, and are now identified as anti-feminists for daring to speak up for men. If equality feminists can be ejected from the movement while the Dworkin/MacKinnon man-haters remain, don’t you think that says a great deal about the movement?

Sommers (from her wiki article):

Sommers uses the terms “equity feminism” and “gender feminism” to differentiate what she sees as acceptable and non-acceptable forms of feminism. She describes equity feminism as the struggle based upon “Enlightenment principles of individual justice”

Pizzey (from her wiki article):

In her book Prone to Violence Pizzey has argued that many of the women who took refuge had a personality such that they sought abusive relationships. Pizzey describes such behaviour as akin to addiction. She speculates that high levels of hormones and neurochemicals associated with pervasive childhood trauma lead to adults who repeatedly engage in violent altercations with intimate partners despite the physical, emotional, legal and financial costs, in unwitting attempts to simulate the emotional impact of traumatic childhood experiences. The book contains numerous stories of disturbed families alongside a discussion of the reasons why the modern state care-taking agencies are largely ineffective.

The truth is that both sexes participate in unwanted sexual activity. A feminist who was brave enough to ask these broad-based questions of both sexes astonished herself to discover that 94 percent of the men (as well as 98 percent of the women) said they had an unwanted sexual activity by the time they were in college. Even more surprising was her finding, reported in the Journal of Sex Research, that 63 percent of the men and 46 percent of the women said they had experienced unwanted intercourse. By feminist definitions of rape as unwanted sex, virtually everybody has been raped. And that’s how rape begins to look like an epidemic. It’s also how rape gets trivialized

In other words: These three here; if they were once feminist and are no longer, well, good fucking riddance.

Paglia’s wiki page is less helpful (does she have a libertarian or Libertarian view on abortion? I still don’t know!) but lists Sommers as one of her critics; in other words, people on your list disagree with each other; how do you shove them into one ideological box?

So Markneil:

1) What, precisely, is your definition of feminism?
2) Regardless of your answer to 1, what issues do you have with the definition of feminism used on this board and spelled out above?

She speculates that high levels of hormones and neurochemicals associated with pervasive childhood trauma lead to adults who repeatedly engage in violent altercations with intimate partners despite the physical, emotional, legal and financial costs, in unwitting attempts to simulate the emotional impact of traumatic childhood experiences.

Imagine that. The regulars here know my story, they know the abuse I went through. Funny how I’ve been married for 33 years in a happy, non-violent relationship.

Not everyone agrees feminism is about equality, and there is ample reason to take this position (SFU men’ center opposition, UofT men’s discussion opposition, NOW equal parenting opposition, Title IX’s use in STEM fields but not the female dominated humanities, despite a higher general female attendance, opposition to A minister for the status of men (in Canada) or a white house council for boys to men (US) as a counterpart to the existing women’s version, etc etc etc.), yet by insisting the only acceptable definition of feminism is equality, you attempt to sweep all this under the rug. You attempt to deny the experiences of those who don’t share your viewpoint, and worst, you attack them, demand more of them than you do of yourself, or that you’ll allow them to demand of you (several people said I’m the one making a claim, therefor I must provide evidence… but isn’t making the claim feminism is about equality a claim as well? I don’t expect you to agree given it would put an expectation on you that you don’t want to accept). People aren’t opposed to equality for women, they are opposed to feminists, feminist like you, who would deny the experiences of men for no other purpose that to attempt to maintain a narrative that feminism is some benevolent force. The negatives people are experiencing in the name of feminism are being denied with claims of “feminism is about equality, that’s not feminism” (or in this threads case that I should accept your definition, that denies all the negative experiences I’ve had, or else I should shut the fuck up. Now why would I not want to sign up for that?). This dishonesty is unappealing, and when we get attacked for pointing it out, you make enemies. The constant double standards about what is acceptable (for example, as a joke… Say tosh’s rape joke vs Watson’s castrate men to keep them in line “joke”), hostility towards men and female chauvinism (say, Laden’s testosterone damage assertion), and general asshole behavior (as seen in many of the replies to me here, or the tendency for my posts, or others, to disappear, such as my last conversation on Ophilia’s blog suddenly having my posts sent to moderation and never being seen again. Sure it’s her right on her blog, it’s still a shitty thing to do, especially without telling the community that a person is unable to respond back to them).

Feminism isn’t opposed because of the ideals you “claim” to support, it is opposed because your actions don’t match your claims, your claims are used to deny others experiences while demanding your own be taken into greater account, and because the people in your movement can be real assholes… as because you don’t have the intellectual honesty to take any of this into consideration, and will simply dismiss it out of hand. And all of this has been displayed in the short attempt to get a simple definition that works for me as much as you.

Until you provide a citation to back up your assertions, your assertions are *POOF* dismissed as evidenceless blather of a misogynist fuckwitted idjit. Only fuckwitted idjits think their OPINION will be accepted without the extreme skepticism toward that OPINION, the same skepticism they show for anything feminist….Think about that before your next bout of idiocy.

And all of this has been displayed in the short attempt to get a simple definition that works for me as much as you.

…explain?
It really sounds like whoever wrote the second statement didn’t write, or even read, the first statement. Yet, the handles are the same. Has someone hacked your account, markneil?

And before you complain that the second part of your first comment:

Define Patriarchy as it pertains to this definition (I did ask for the definition of patriarchy in my very first post, to be fair).

…wasn’t addressed, at least one person did. Who was that, I forget – oh wait, it was me, with this:

Howabout a system of authority in which men wield disproportionate power, and use aspects of that power to maintain the power imbalance.

Up at 1122 or thereabouts.
I even asked if this was acceptable to you.
I also asked if this would help you ever getting around to making some sort of point.
By this I actually mean a point based on the discussion in the thread.
I remain hopeful but not expectant.

“Just as biologists use the term “berry” differently than your average English-speaker doesn’t mean that either term is wrong, per say. It’s that they have different definitions. And just because Dworkin considers herself to be a feminist doesn’t mean that we agree with her on everything.”

Then why does anyone have a problem with anti-feminists? If you yourself acknowledge feminism can have different meanings to different people, then the feminism anti-feminists oppose doesn’t need to be your own, now does it? It likewise means that being anti-feminist has nothing to do with being anti-equality, anti-women, or any of that BS, because the feminism they are anti- may very well be the man-hating kind. You see, if you get to play the “definition of feminism is subjective” card, so do others.

I’m going to conclude “highly probably libertarian” and “totally not what ‘feminism’ means around here

Does that mean it’s not real feminism? Does feminism not mean different things to different people now? And what exactly was the quoted portion have to do with anything, except, perhaps, to suggest that fathers rights issues don’t belong in your “equality for all” feminism?

I also find it telling that you say “good fucking riddence” to:
Sommers for acknowledging what you just claimed above, there are different kinds fo feminism, and some you don’t agree with. To Sommer, some of those are non-acceptable. Are you arguing that al forms of feminism should be acceptable, and that thinking otherwise means you shouldn’t be a feminist?

Pizzey for acknowledging that abusive behavior is a result of childhood trauma that affects both genders, based on her lengthy career as domestic abuse advocate and the founder of the first domestic violence shelter.

Farrell for acknowledging, again, both sexes perform the actions discussed, and that unwanted (but agreed to) and non-consensual are different things, and pretending they aren’t leads to problems.

As to paglia and Sommers being critical of each other, I’m not the one who lumped them both into the catagory of “anti-feminist”, that was the people writing the feminism wiki, where they also identify Dworkin as a radical feminist. Furthermore, disagreements within a group are not a problem, the problem is when you have two people disagreeing on an opinion, and then the definition of the entire group uses the opinion of one of the two, and ignores the fat the other person within the group disagrees.

As to my definition of feminism…

Feminism is a movement designed for the empowerment of women. To what degree women are empowered, and what their opinion regarding men are, are seperate ideals from feminism and are persona to each individual feminist.

It really sounds like whoever wrote the second statement didn’t write, or even read, the first statement.

So because one person was able to work with me, the rest can all be ignored? I don’t think so.

As to adding patriarchy to the definition, I actually think that’s a bad idea, as many feminists have abandoned patriarchy theory for kyrarcy, and others have simply rejected it altogether.

As to making a point, I made one. If you want to pretend otherwise, you’re welcome to, but we both know the attitudes and actions of feminists is a legitimate reason to be opposed to feminism without actually being opposed to the idea’s of equality.Such beliefs in a monopoly on equality thought would be another example of the attitudes of feminists that are repulsive.

So because one person was able to work with me, the rest can all be ignored? I don’t think so.

Perhaps I misunderstood that when you said this was a definition you could ‘work with’, that you’d actually, um work with it. As in, you’d actually address why feminism thusly defined was something worth being critical of, or you’d admit that maybe it wasn’t.
Perhaps I’m just missing where you did either of those things.

As to adding patriarchy to the definition, I actually think that’s a bad idea, as many feminists have abandoned patriarchy theory for kyrarcy, and others have simply rejected it altogether.

Well, I only attempted to define it, as someone asked me to.
I assume you disagree with either the definition, or with the reality of it.
I have to assume, as you didn’t actually address either, except to toss out a completely unsupported statement about ‘most’ feminists having done something. I’m presuming you have some sort of reference for that ‘fact’, too, but just couldn’t be bothered.

May I also point out how hypocritical it is to insist that we defend all aspects of feminism, while you feel free to avoid addressing aspects you’d prefer not to. Which is it?
May I say that “many feminists do not support inequality” and thus ignore those that do? Or should I ask you to address every aspect of feminism that has been presented?

As to making a point, I made one. If you want to pretend otherwise, you’re welcome to, but we both know the attitudes and actions of feminists is a legitimate reason to be opposed to feminism without actually being opposed to the idea’s of equality.Such beliefs in a monopoly on equality thought would be another example of the attitudes of feminists that are repulsive.

(Emphasis added).

No, actually I don’t.
As I don’t view feminism as a monolithic structure, I am perfectly capable of admiring aspects of it while disliking individuals who promote different aspects of it. I don’t have to accept everything everyone says about a social movement in order to embrace the movement. If you do, that’s a flaw in your thinking, not in the movement.
And, of course, I am also capable of reading from the OP in which the specific type and style of feminism we were attempting to discuss is actually laid out, right there, for all to see:

Most importantly, if you think feminism, that is equality for men and women and opposition to cultural institutions that perpetuate inequities, is irrational, let’s see you explain your opposition rationally.

(Emphasis added)

There are feminists who oppose gender equality. I disagree with them. Who’s not the feminist, then, them or me?
And if we’re both feminists, then why is it so terribly hard for you to understand that we’re not asking why you might oppose feminism based on inequality. We got that. In fact, we agree with that opposition.
We’re asking why you oppose the feminism based on equality. Because of the name? Is it confusing you? Are you having trouble telling the attitudes apart?

I hate to tell you this, but when you grow up, you’ll find many things in the world like that.
Unless, of course, you are grown up, and you do understand the difference, and you’re just pretending to not understand.
In which case, the OP’s questions stands: why?

Perhaps I misunderstood that when you said this was a definition you could ‘work with’, that you’d actually, um work with it.

The point was actually with the difficulty, and hostility, in getting to a definition that was workable for both sides. After all, if you are incappable of acknowledging the negative aspects of feminism and/or feminists that do not fit into your own ideals, for the purpose of coming to a mutually agreable definition, how exactly can anyone expect you to ackowledge those same negative aspects are significant enough to warent an opposition to some forms of feminism?

The fact I’ve already stated this, several times now, and it has largely been ignored in favor of more hostility is precisely what I’ve described. Opposition to feminist doesn’t stem from the definition that was agreed upon, it stems from the mass denial that feminism is anything other than the definition provided by PZ, not to mention the hostility that breeds from daring to suggest otherwise. If feminism used the liberation of women definition, instead of trying to hide it’s non-equality elements behind a definition many people know isn’t universally applicable, and worse, if feminism didn’t attack those who dared to point this dishonesty out, you really wouldn’t have so much opposition. The most common tactic used against those who point out feminists negative elements is “feminism is not a monolith… yet when others point this exact same fact out to those claiming feminism is about equality, well, you can see the results. Does it truly suprise you that kind of response creates a backlash?

Re: Patriarchy. I don’t think it’s relevant to the definition of feminism given it is not universaly applicable, that’s why I dropped it. I disagree with the reality of it. I think it assigns hostile motives onto men, as a whole, that don’t really exist, in order to explain outcomes that aren’t understood, or that aren’t understood to feminist satisfaction. For example, in the wake of the recent Sandy hooks shootings, several articles have bean written about how the cause of this was the white males inability to adapt to the loss of their white male privilege, never mind the shooter was 20 years old and lived under his single mother, and could hardly have even known what that white male privilege was supposedly like, let alone being unable to adapt to it.

Additionally, changing my words from many to most is incredibly dishonest, especially when you choose to highlight the word most (a word I never said) in quotes

May I also point out how hypocritical it is to insist that we defend all aspects of feminism, while you feel free to avoid addressing aspects you’d prefer not to.

Who said anything about defending all aspects of feminism. I only require that you acknowledge them and the influence they have over others perceptions of feminism. So long as you continue to pretend the only form of feminism that exists is the equality type, you deny ayone who opposes the hatful type their experiences. Ifeminism does just what I’ve asked of you, they acknowledge the negative aspects of feminism, and I believe I’ve already stated I support them.

And you’re still doing the same thing others have done, you are pretending that my demanding you acknowledge the negative elements exist is equivilent to my demanding all other elements don’t. NOT THE SAME THING. And incredibly underhanded. if I gave you a basket with 12 apples and a small log of dog shit, and told people I gave you a basket of apples, that’s what your doing. Now imagine that I got all pissy about you trying to acknowledge I gave you dog shit, and accused you of saying that I only gave you dog shit and denying I gave you apples, that’s also what your doing.

As I don’t view feminism as a monolithic structure, I am perfectly capable of admiring aspects of it while disliking individuals who promote different aspects of it

But this group does have a problem when OTHERS disklike aspects of feminism and see that aspect in the same way you see the equality part, which I note many of the commenters here seem to apply to all of feminism as if it was a monolithic structure. This very article is evidence of that. You’re allowed to dislike elements of feminism, so long as you get to ensure those elements aren’t perceived as representative of feminism in any way (evidenced by your attempt to differentiate the elements you don’t like as “individuals promoting different aspects of it”.).

I don’t have to accept everything everyone says about a social movement in order to embrace the movement.

But we do, right? We must accept what YOU believe of your social movement and embrace ot, or else you get to decide which elements of it we supposedly dislike. It couldn’t possibly be that we dislike the same aspects you dislike, but see those as far more representative of the movement than you do, and perceive it as a dealbreaker. No, we must be opposed to the aspects you support, because …

There are feminists who oppose gender equality. I disagree with them. Who’s not the feminist, then, them or me?
And if we’re both feminists,

Then how can the definition of feminism exclude those that oppose equality? If both exist, why does only one sides ideals get applied to the definition? Why do those who say “hey now, there’s that other side, they’re feminists to and your definition doesn’t include them and your definition actually hides and protects those types” get attacked for daring to speak up?

then why is it so terribly hard for you to understand that we’re not asking why you might oppose feminism based on inequality.

But the assumption of anti-feminists ALWAYS includes the assumption we are opposed to the equality type. By defining feminism, ALL of it, as about equality, you are lumping yourselves in with the anti-equality aspects that are the source of anti-feminism. You leave no room for anything else. You quotd PZ, and nowhere in that quote does he leave any room for non-equality feminism. It is “If you think feminism, that is equality …”, not the aspect of feminism that is for equality, not the feminists that are for equality, but feminism… presented as a unified, monolithic structure. Where exactly did he leave room for those elements that are anti-equality? His definition specifically disavows their existance, and lumps them together with you, under a dishonest cloack of being about equality. And when I tried to point out that wasn’t the case, well… hostility.

We’re asking why you oppose the feminism based on equality.

No, you are asking why we are opposed to feminism, (this comma is important, it changes the meaning) which is based on equality.

Are you having trouble telling the attitudes apart?

When feminism, not just your brand, but all of it, is defined by a single label with the definition of equality, it becomes difficult to tell the individuals using that label appart. You’re just as guilty of that as you assume we are, given you presume anyone talking about feminism, including that in a negative light, is talking about your feminism and not the other attitudes.

Still not one link from NM, who doesn’t appear to want to have a serious EVIDENCED discussion, but rather to be able to present his fuckwitted OPINION without refutation. Maybe he will grow and realize mature people use evidence to support their OPINION. And no evidence means *POOF* OPINION DISMISSED AS FUCKWITTERY.

Whew, at the risk of hitting the TL;DR wall, I’ll tackle what’s been said.

Oh, and I will use blockquotes, as they make everything very much easier to read.

Perhaps I misunderstood that when you said this was a definition you could ‘work with’, that you’d actually, um work with it.

The point was actually with the difficulty, and hostility, in getting to a definition that was workable for both sides.

Rather than a substantive debate about the actual term, or definition itself. In other words, you weren’t looking to actually define terms, you were just trying to see if people got riled up. Because that’s bad, y’see, being all upset.
But do go on…

After all, if you are incappable of acknowledging the negative aspects of feminism and/or feminists that do not fit into your own ideals, for the purpose of coming to a mutually agreable definition, how exactly can anyone expect you to ackowledge those same negative aspects are significant enough to warent an opposition to some forms of feminism?

Except that I do, and have acknowledged that there are negative aspects to some things certain feminists have said. In fact, I did so in the post you are quoting. Several definition of feminism have covered those aspects.
The OP definition isn’t defending those types of feminism, as has been said multiple times.
And, as I said, I also oppose those aspects of feminism.
That does not mean I oppose feminism.
That’s because I can tell them apart.

The fact I’ve already stated this, several times now, and it has largely been ignored in favor of more hostility is precisely what I’ve described. Opposition to feminist doesn’t stem from the definition that was agreed upon, it stems from the mass denial that feminism is anything other than the definition provided by PZ, not to mention the hostility that breeds from daring to suggest otherwise.

Since you’re flouncing, I suppose I can’t ask you to quote where I have denied that those aspects exist.
But, if you’re still reading, try to find them yourself.
If you can’t please try to figure out what this ‘point’ is based on in your answer to me.

If feminism used the liberation of women definition, instead of trying to hide it’s non-equality elements behind a definition many people know isn’t universally applicable, and worse, if feminism didn’t attack those who dared to point this dishonesty out, you really wouldn’t have so much opposition. The most common tactic used against those who point out feminists negative elements is “feminism is not a monolith… yet when others point this exact same fact out to those claiming feminism is about equality, well, you can see the results. Does it truly suprise you that kind of response creates a backlash?

…and an extremely common tactic for those who wish to oppose something widely seen as a positive social movement, like feminism or civil rights, is to insist that all within the movement be responsible for the extreme fringes.

Re: Patriarchy. I don’t think it’s relevant to the definition of feminism given it is not universaly applicable, that’s why I dropped it. I disagree with the reality of it. I think it assigns hostile motives onto men, as a whole,

Then you do not understand it, and cannot comment intelligently on it.
It requires no malice.
It only requires that there be a power imbalance, and that people at the top of that imbalance work to perpetuate it.

that don’t really exist, in order to explain outcomes that aren’t understood, or that aren’t understood to feminist satisfaction. For example, in the wake of the recent Sandy hooks shootings, several articles have bean written about how the cause of this was the white males inability to adapt to the loss of their white male privilege, never mind the shooter was 20 years old and lived under his single mother, and could hardly have even known what that white male privilege was supposedly like, let alone being unable to adapt to it.

And you then go on to show that you do not understand the concept of privilege at all. It is exactly those that have few other aspects of privilege that are most likely to be upset at losing what privilege they do have.
I have no idea, of course, if this has anything to do with Sandy Hook, and am suspicious of post-hoc generalities like that in any case.

Additionally, changing my words from many to most is incredibly dishonest, especially when you choose to highlight the word most (a word I never said) in quotes

That was an error on my part, not deliberate, and it does substantially change what you said. It was wrong, and I apologize.

…you still didn’t include anything backing up the statement, even when correctly quoted as ‘many’, though. Or do you think that the difference between ‘many’ and ‘most’ can be taken without anything to back it up?

May I also point out how hypocritical it is to insist that we defend all aspects of feminism, while you feel free to avoid addressing aspects you’d prefer not to.

Who said anything about defending all aspects of feminism. I only require that you acknowledge them and the influence they have over others perceptions of feminism. So long as you continue to pretend the only form of feminism that exists is the equality type, you deny ayone who opposes the hatful type their experiences. Ifeminism does just what I’ve asked of you, they acknowledge the negative aspects of feminism, and I believe I’ve already stated I support them.

I’m going to be able to highlight exactly where you quoted me doing exactly what you claim I have not been doing. It will make you look silly.

And you’re still doing the same thing others have done, you are pretending that my demanding you acknowledge the negative elements exist is equivilent to my demanding all other elements don’t. NOT THE SAME THING. And incredibly underhanded. if I gave you a basket with 12 apples and a small log of dog shit, and told people I gave you a basket of apples, that’s what your doing. Now imagine that I got all pissy about you trying to acknowledge I gave you dog shit, and accused you of saying that I only gave you dog shit and denying I gave you apples, that’s also what your doing.

That would be dishonest.
Fortunately, it’s not what I’ve been doing, as I will show you.
Take a look at the bolded bit below, for example…

As I don’t view feminism as a monolithic structure, I am perfectly capable of admiring aspects of it while disliking individuals who promote different aspects of it

See that?

But this group does have a problem when OTHERS disklike aspects of feminism and see that aspect in the same way you see the equality part, which I note many of the commenters here seem to apply to all of feminism as if it was a monolithic structure. This very article is evidence of that. You’re allowed to dislike elements of feminism, so long as you get to ensure those elements aren’t perceived as representative of feminism in any way (evidenced by your attempt to differentiate the elements you don’t like as “individuals promoting different aspects of it”.).

Well, as soon as you can show that the things you have issues with are, in fact, widely supported by people in the movement, I will bow to your judgment and apologize, and probably get out of feminism.
Yet, every time you have been asked to demonstrate this, you either will not or cannot.
I see no evidence that typical feminists wish to replace a male-dominated society with a female-dominated one. I do not see that in talking to feminists in real life, or here on the internet. And I do not see that in the evidence you have presented.
Because you haven’t.

I don’t have to accept everything everyone says about a social movement in order to embrace the movement.

But we do, right? We must accept what YOU believe of your social movement and embrace ot, or else you get to decide which elements of it we supposedly dislike. It couldn’t possibly be that we dislike the same aspects you dislike, but see those as far more representative of the movement than you do, and perceive it as a dealbreaker. No, we must be opposed to the aspects you support, because …

No, you must just show that the elements I dislike are more representative. You must give evidence of it. You must demonstrate this. Otherwise, you have not given any greater force to your opinion than I have to mine.

There are feminists who oppose gender equality. I disagree with them. Who’s not the feminist, then, them or me?
And if we’re both feminists,

Then how can the definition of feminism exclude those that oppose equality?

Definitions were given that included both sides.
Definitions were also given that specifically excluded those we thought we not good aspects of the movement, which you say we have not acknowledged.
How could we have made definitions of specific types of feminism we dislike if we cannot acknowledge that there are types of feminism we dislike?

If both exist, why does only one sides ideals get applied to the definition? Why do those who say “hey now, there’s that other side, they’re feminists to and your definition doesn’t include them and your definition actually hides and protects those types” get attacked for daring to speak up?

I haven’t ‘attacked’ you.
I have pointed out where I thought you were wrong, and asked you to provide evidence for what you were saying, which runs counter to what I, as a feminist, and most of the others here, as feminists, have experienced about feminism.

then why is it so terribly hard for you to understand that we’re not asking why you might oppose feminism based on inequality.

But the assumption of anti-feminists ALWAYS includes the assumption we are opposed to the equality type. By defining feminism, ALL of it, as about equality, you are lumping yourselves in with the anti-equality aspects that are the source of anti-feminism. You leave no room for anything else. You quotd PZ, and nowhere in that quote does he leave any room for non-equality feminism. It is “If you think feminism, that is equality …”, not the aspect of feminism that is for equality, not the feminists that are for equality, but feminism… presented as a unified, monolithic structure. Where exactly did he leave room for those elements that are anti-equality? His definition specifically disavows their existance, and lumps them together with you, under a dishonest cloack of being about equality. And when I tried to point out that wasn’t the case, well… hostility.

Because we all agree that non-equality feminists are not good.
We really don’t think any intelligent adult needs anything more than that to understand that we don’t side with them, agree with them, or feel that they are definitive or representative of the movement in general.
Non-equality feminists exist.
Non-equality feminists exist.
Non-equality feminists exist.
Non-equality feminists exist.

I can repeat that a few more times, if you need more repetitions to get they they have been acknowledged. You didn’t get that the first few times, so I’m doing it more to help you out.

We’re asking why you oppose the feminism based on equality.

No, you are asking why we are opposed to feminism, (this comma is important, it changes the meaning) which is based on equality.

Yes, because, as far as we can tell, that’s the typical opinion of feminists.
If you think otherwise, back it up.
If you can’t, stop saying it.

Are you having trouble telling the attitudes apart?

When feminism, not just your brand, but all of it, is defined by a single label with the definition of equality, it becomes difficult to tell the individuals using that label appart.

So, that’s a ‘yes’, then.
You have trouble telling the difference between equality feminists and non-equality feminists.
That’s actually a problem with you, not with feminism, just so you know.

You’re just as guilty of that as you assume we are, given you presume anyone talking about feminism, including that in a negative light, is talking about your feminism and not the other attitudes.

But we didn’t presume that.
We stated it.
Right there in the OP.
And then, repeatedly, afterwards.
We’re not curious as to why you oppose non-equality feminism, because we do too. We’re curious as to why you oppose equality feminism, which was the question asked and repeated, ad naseum, throughout the thread.

I would love to know who these non-equality feminists are, just for future reference.

Enh, the internet being the internet, I imagine I could go poking around until I found a female separatist website, if it’s really that important.

Just off the top of my head, I found the later works of Jo Clayton to have a universal casting bias: Heterosexual males were villains, homosexual males were potentially dangerous allies, neutral or trans-gender beings were either oppressed victims or oppressed counter-cultures, and females were heroic. This even extended backwards, in which interactions with previously-established male characters who had up until that point been steadfast allies inexplicably became cartoonish villains when revisited.

Of course, I know very little about Jo Clayton personally, so I suppose one could argue that these casting biases were unrelated to her worldview, or that she didn’t refer to herself as a feminist and thus disprove the point.
I dunno.

Stop with all this fucking nonsense. Here, I’ll put our beef with you in very simple terms that even an obtuse piece of shit dribbler like you can understand.

Are you opposed to equality between women and men?

Are you opposed to feminism that seeks equality for women in relation to men, in principle?

Are you opposed to feminism as a method or in practice?

If the answer to any of these questions is “yes”, then state your argument.

If not, then WHAT IS ALL THIS VERBAL DIARRHEA FOR? Every time we address what might look like an argument, you fucking backpedal and say we’re projecting. So far, the only thing you’re willing to discuss is this boring derail about forms of feminism (or straw feminism) we don’t get behind.

We’re not interested in endlessly bickering about semantics with a boorish clown. We’re not interested in your definitions, we already gave one. Argue with it or GTFO.

What’s the problem? Make your point and put him in his place if you can.

Have the fuckwitted evidenceless idjit come here, preferably to the thunderdome, where we can unleash our vocabulary on abject losers like yourself. I hear the Pullet Patrol this idjit: Bawk-bawk-bawk…

Don’t they have some kind of merit badge for get banned from Pharyngula?

Appears to be the case, as they do the same stupid shit over and over, not really trying to avoid the banhammer. Shows what abject non-achievers they are if the banhammer of Pharyngula is a highlight of their meager existence…

Based on the above, men are 3 times more likely to be in prison, in relation to crimes committed.

Under the OP’s definition, feminist organizations, if they where honest, should definitely demand “affirmative action” type solution to address this obvious problem of sexism (with specific percentage targets to eliminate the discrepancy).

So, if the majority of feminist organizations have taken specific actions demanding the above, then I will call my self a feminist. Otherwise, I will be pro-gender-equality, and anti-feminist. Please help me make up my mind.

Simple concept VV, and the burden of evidence is upon you, the person making the claim. You can’t compare overall arrests with overall prison sentences and get good statistics that will convince anybody with even half a brain of anything. You need to compare M/F sentencing for (say) the third conviction of armed robbery with equal number of related violent priors that effects sentencing and see if there is a significant disparity. Only then, can you say there isn’t equality in prison sentences.

Sorry I was looking at the statistics, to see maybe I could find something more conclusive.

You guys are much more involved in the issue of gender equality than I am, so if you have any statistics pointing otherwise, a would be happy to see them (just to save time, that’s all).

For example the wikipedia definition is “an advocate or supporter of the rights and equality of women”.

To answer your question directly, I got your point. If anti-racist NGOs don’t fight for equal treatment of non-white offenders (which i doubt), then they are not doing their job, and they should be criticized for that. Are we in disagreement on that?

To answer your question directly, I got your point. If anti-racist NGOs don’t fight for equal treatment of non-white offenders (which i doubt), then they are not doing their job, and they should be criticized for that. Are we in disagreement on that?

Yes, in fact we are. Unless you’re actively involved, you have no fucking right to set other people’s priorities. And disowning a broad movement because you aer in disagreement with the priorities with parts of it is just idiotic.

The good news is that you can get involved, and set your own priorities for your own work.

Guess what – I disagree a lot with the priorities of (at least it seems so) a major part of the atheist movement. I disagree even more with the priorities with the skeptic movement. That does neither make me a theist or an anti-sceptic. Nor does it stop me from doing my own thing in my own corners of he world.

The presence of more men in prison as compared to women may or may not be due to sexism (it could be that more men than women commit crimes). However, you have presented no information to support your theory.

Voth Vothrakis, have you delved further into the data to see what differences there might be between what men and women are being arrested for?

If (for example) most women are being arrested for non-violent crimes such as shop-lifting, pick-pocketing or embezzlement etc while many more men are being arrested for violent crimes such as assault, robbery with violence etc then the disparity in the prison population is readily explained by the fact that non-violent crimes tend to result in short custodial sentences whereas violent crimes tend to result in much longer custodial sentences. Even non-violent property crimes such as burglary and car theft tend to result in much longer custodial sentences than smaller pecuniary crimes.

So perhaps the women arrested in the UK are in fact being sent to prison just as often as the men who are arrested, but because of differences in the crimes committed they simply don’t stay there for as long. That’s a gender disparity for sure, but it’s a disparity in the actual behaviour regarding crimes committed, not a discrimination in the application of the law.

So perhaps the women arrested in the UK are in fact being sent to prison just as often as the men who are arrested, but because of differences in the crimes committed they simply don’t stay there for as long.

“The average custodial sentence length (ACSL) for all indictable offences was consistently higher for males than for females between 2007 and 2011 (in 2011, 17.7 months for males compared to 11.6 months for females).”
and
“Across the five year period, there were substantially fewer women than men both under supervision and in prison custody. A greater proportion of women were also serving shorter sentences than men, which is again likely to be attributable to a range of factors including differences in the offence types committed by men and women.”
and
“Overall, a higher proportion of all males than all females were sentenced to immediate custody in 2011 (10% versus 3%), and females more commonly received a fine (77% versus 61% of males). These patterns were also consistent in the four preceding years.”

Rodney, there is no real linkage made between feminism and criminal statistics other than being purportedly bewildered as to its need since in that particular sphere women apparently fare better than men.

Ok maybe ant-feminist is a bit strong. Non-feminist would be more accurate.

Also the point that it is easy to criticize, when other people are doing all the work is well taken.

The good news is that you can get involved, and set your own priorities for your own work.

I accept that my data was not convincing enough to demonstrate the problem of gender inequality in the judicial system, but I will do further research and come back tomorrow. If we discover that there is actually such inequality, would you say that it would be worthy of publishing on the blog, or would it be somewhat irrelevant to the feminist movement?

Please don’t take the questions I made up to now as dishonest criticism, since I was never involved in any feminist/anti-feminist organizations up to now. It is just that I was amazed by the controversy that has risen among atheists on the topic. In Europe we use the term “gender equality” instead of “feminism”, and this is possibly the reason why the people that objected were mostly European.

Why not everybody use that term instead? It would surely lead to less controversy. Would any of the objectives of the feminist movement be diluted under this term?

Thank you very much for your answers so far, and this topic helped me correct some miss-conceptions I had about feminism.

John Morales, without a further breakdown of the range of “indictable offenses” we’re still comparing apples and oranges ( “indictable offences” includes any offence of a serious enough nature to be tried in a Crown Court rather than a Magistrates Court – it still doesn’t tell us which of those indictable offences are VATP (Violence Against The Person) and which are not, just for one very relevant distinction regarding typical length of sentence).

Rodney, there is no real linkage made between feminism and criminal statistics other than being purportedly bewildered as to its need since in that particular sphere women apparently fare better than men.

But if we discover that men and women get different punishment for the same crimes, would that not be an indication of gender prejudice? And shouldn’t we work to correct it? (Not by convicting more women). It seems similar to the the equal-work not-equal-pay argument.

[1] But if we discover that men and women get different punishment for the same crimes, would that not be an indication of gender prejudice? [2] And shouldn’t we work to correct it? (Not by convicting more women). [3] It seems similar to the the equal-work not-equal-pay argument.

1. An indication is not a diagnosis any more than a symptom is a disease.

2. Correcting its cause on a systemic basis, sure.

(Quibbling about definitions, not so much)

3. So you’re not anti-feminism, you just want its name changed to suit your predilection.

* In 2011, females accounted for 24% of the 127,530 PNDs and 24% of the 231,483 cautions administered to individuals of known gender. Retail theft (under £200) was the most common offence type for which females were issued a PND (54% of PNDs issued to females), and drunk and disorderly for males (31% of PNDs issued to males).
* Overall, 1,246,320 persons of known gender were convicted and sentenced at all courts in 2011; again 24% were female and 76% were male.
* Theft and handling stolen goods (which includes shoplifting) was the most common indictable offence group for which both females and males were sentenced at all courts between 2007 and 2011 (52% of females and 33% of males sentenced for indictable offences in 2011).
* Overall, a higher proportion of all males than all females were sentenced to immediate custody in 2011 (10% versus 3%), and females more commonly received a fine (77% versus 61% of males). These patterns were also consistent in the four preceding years.
* The average custodial sentence length (ACSL) for all indictable offences was consistently higher for males than for females between 2007 and 2011 (in 2011, 17.7 months for males compared to 11.6 months for females).

Those key findings show no disparity between the gender breakdown of people who are arrested and the gender breakdown of those who are convicted/sentenced – in both cases it’s 24% female and 76% male. So that figure does *not* support VV’s claim.

Women are overwhelmingly more likely to be arrested/convicted regarding simple property crimes (theft and handling stolen goods) than men are (52% of women vs 33% of men). Simple property crimes are less likely to result in being sentenced to immediate custody (remand) compared to those offences which the justice system regards as more serious, and when the time comes for a conviction the sentence handed down is far more likely to be non-custodial or a shorter term in custody.

As the report itself says, this gender difference in the type of crimes committed is what is most likely to account for the gender disparity in average sentence lengths, because when it says “average custodial length (ACSL) for all indictable offences” it means “all indictable offences” in aggregate rather than comparing ACSL for each indictable offence.

VV:
feminism exists because there is a disproportionate gap between womens equality and men (with men possessing greater political, social and economic freedom than women, by far). Women are discriminated against at a much higher rate than men.
Read up on the gender wage gap.
Check out rape culture.
Read Schroedingers Rapist.

In an attempt – probably vain – to explain how Dworkin and radical feminists (hint: that is not an insult, but a neutral discriptor) fit within feminism, I shall first posit that this is the core idea and thought process of feminism (all feminism):

Position: Equality of all people is good for both people and society.
Observation: Women and men are unequal, and women are statistically speaking disadvantaged with respect to men.
Position: This state of affairs is undesirable and should be fixed.

The different strains of feminism differ in how they answer the question that inevitably flows from this:

How is equality of men and women to be achieved?

Radical feminism posits that the concepts of “masculine” and “feminine” are irredeemably tainted and are themselves inherently toxic, and thus need smashing. Radical feminism posits that the patriarchal system is not a coating on society, it is in and of society, and thus, society needs to be dismantled and rebuilt from the ground up. This is what makes it “radical,” after all.

I won’t respond to the comments towards me, because it would be unfair since the commenters are probably not logged in. If anybody that is present thinks I should address any of them, please let me know and I will be happy to do so.

Yesterday my claim was found unsupported by evidence, but I found some more you could study.

Based on the above I think that the claim that men and women are treated unequally by the justice system seems valid.

As I said earlier, the OP’s definition says that “feminism” and “gender equality” are tautologies.
“Most importantly, if you think feminism, that is equality for men and women and opposition to cultural institutions that perpetuate inequities, is irrational, let’s see you explain your opposition rationally.”

If that was true, I would be a pro-feminist.

In order to justify the definition with the new data I see the following options:
1) Show that feminist movements (by majority) have in fact actively worked to correct this problem.
2) Feminists (at least the ones on this site) admit that you have not worked on this problem, because you were not aware of it, and from now on actively promote an “affirmative action” type solution.
3) Admit that the problem exists, but justify how other issues are more important (e.g payment discrepancies). I think most of us would agree that few things could be more important that being sent to prison unjustly based on your gender.
4) Admit that reason the above problem is not addressed, is that it does not affect women, and after all feminism cares about womens’ rights, not about gender equality.

I am sorry if I have commented to many times for a n00b on this topic, and if I am co-opting the thread, please tell me so, and I will remain silent from now on.

Then we won’t respond to you, but a blog is not where peer reviewed academic literature is found. So I won’t bother to look at your “evidence”. You either explain it in detail with proper citations, or shut the fuck up. Welcome to real science, where, you, not us, have to make your case. Attitude appears to be your main argument.

Dude the people are offline. Any one of them you agree with, so that you can defend it?

And at least the second link IS a proper citation from a scientific journal:
Jill K. Doerner, Stephen Demuth, “The Independent and Joint Effects of Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and Age on Sentencing Outcomes in U.S. Federal Courts”, Justice Quarterly, Vol. 27, Iss. 1, 2010

I quote:

“Using data compiled by the United States Sentencing Commission, we examine the independent and joint effects of race/ethnicity, gender, and age on sentencing decisions in U.S. federal courts. We find that Hispanics and blacks, males, and younger defendants receive harsher sentences than whites, females, and older defendants after controlling for important legal and contextual factors.”

The following table shows that women are around 42% less likely than men to be sent to jail and that women receive sentences that are approximately 25% shorter than men.

“Table 2 shows the main effects of race/ethnicity, gender, and age on in/out and sentence length outcomes controlling for important legal factors and judicial district.”

I won’t respond to the comments towards me, because it would be unfair since the commenters are probably not logged in.

You’re either not overly bright or a liar. Possibly both.

I am sorry if I have commented to many times for a n00b on this topic

Well then, here’s a thought: this is simply one thread dealing with feminism. It contains well over 1,000 comments. Why don’t you click back to page 1 and read every single fucking comment? Short form: stop fucking talking and do this instead: read, comprehend, listen and think.

Well lets see….
There actually has been a bunch of work by feminists towards justice reform including reforms that would
preferentially help men like fighting against the death penalty.
The fact that it hasn’t been addressed does not mean feminists are not interested in solving it.

What would an affirmative action style solution to this problem look like? That would be a good step towards deciding if that is a good solution. Most problems in gender discrimination are going to take many different efforts to fix including eventually a cultural change.

3. Why should we play who’s the bigger victim (the game everyone loses). Men going to prison unjustly is wrong and needs to be fixed, women being raped and society turning a blind eye is wrong and needs to be fixed.

4. Feminists do in fact care about issues other then women’s rights. Libby Anne for example just did a post on the unfair gender pressures on men. Feminism and feminist allies have historically been largely women and their goals have largely been about the greater historical problems they faced.

However, frankly if there was less hostility from people talking about the discrimination men face, less who’s the bigger victim, more work together on the problems we, our loves, children and families face we would see a lot more progress having been made to make things better for all of us.

And you failed to make your case, by showing the data. What you do is a creationist coming in and referring to AIG, and claiming victory. Quit with the quotes, more creobot argument from authority. Show us the data that for equal convictions, crimes and other factors the sentencing for white women is different significantly from that of white men. Proper comparisons, here. That is how one argues science. Try it if you want to convince us, by YOU DOING THE PROPER WORK TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS. Welcome to science.

However, frankly if there was less hostility from people talking about the discrimination men face, less who’s the bigger victim, more work together on the problems we, our loves, children and families face we would see a lot more progress having been made to make things better for all of us.

As someone who has been an active feminist for 40+ years, I’m personally quite sick of “what about the men!1!!” being used as an “argument” to be against feminism and refuse to work toward equality. Especially on days when VAWA has been tabled and it’s going to be utterly dismissed.

I don’t particularly like it either. I have a tendency to be perhaps overly charitable in my replies. If my position was not clear what ever discrimination men do or do not face it should have no bearing on efforts to address the problems women face. I do think we’d get more done if the people worried about men’s problems would stop fighting feminism (not that I expect this to happen any time soon, nor am I entirely convinced by the claimed motivations of many of the people opposed to feminism).

@Nerd
The study has taken all the factors into account. If you don’t have access to the manuscript I would be happy to use my university’s subscription to send it to you.

@michaeld
Thanx for the positive attitude. I was losing all hope :) . I totally agree with you that hostility is very counterproductive. Point 3 wasn’t that we should not care. It was that we should care for all cases of gender inequality. Regarding point 4, I understand that historically women have faced very serious discrimination, and they still are, despite the many successes of the movement.

Regarding the actions one could take on the specific point I made (to me it is important – others may disagree), a first step would be to publicly admit that the problem exists, and issue a statement that we are going to move towards solving it. What could the solutions be? A first step would be to raise public awareness to the Justices, so that they understand that they are discriminating, and after recognizing they would hopefully correct their attitude. The broader society should also be informed of this type of sexism. On a second level, one could suggest a monitoring system for the Judges that are not behaving in a gender-neutral manner (other types of discrimination could also be included), which specific penalties. Of course, this should be done in a way that would take into consideration the variability of local spatial/temporal data.
I am pretending to have THE SOLUTION, since my post-doc is in computer networks (which makes a bit ironic to hear “Welcome to science” comments), not in Law, but we could start with this as an initial proposal, and people that are more expert could contribute towards the best solution.

it is not imaginary. Just look at the data. And I never said anything of dropping the rest of the feminist causes.

First off, fuck you for assuming anyone here needs your links. Second, fuck you for pretending you didn’t just diminish and dismiss women’s issues in favors of WAAAAAAHHHHHH TALK ABOUT ME!!!!! Third, I’ve been an active feminist for nearly 20 years. I’ve helped build shelters with my own hands. I’ve worked the phones at rape crisis centers getting as much help as I could for ALL victims – female, male, young, old, black, white, etc. The very last thing I need is some worthlessly clueless noob pretending his ignorance and uselessness is a fault with feminism.

I do think we’d get more done if the people worried about men’s problems would stop fighting feminism

Sure, so do I. However, it doesn’t make any actual difference that feminism does often address and redress problems men face. In another recent thread, an anti-feminist challenged me to name anything that feminists did which helped men – that was easy, off the top of my head I named workplace rights and fairness, parental leave and daycare. The response? “But women didn’t do that specifically for men, so it’s doesn’t count.”

It’s a bit hard not to get a “fuck it” mentality after decades of that sort of attitude.

. . . if there was less hostility from people talking about the discrimination men face . . .

So when the discussion is about the discrimination men face, we should politely discuss the discrimination men face. And when the discussion is about the discrimination women face, we should politely discuss the discrimination men face. Got it.

Your chain was being yanked. Still waiting for your demonstration that your evidence today is better than that which you presented yesterday, and ended up with the egg on your face, not our. Which is why you must do your homework. You shot your credibility yesterday, and your word isn’t worth the cost of the electrons needed to post your screeds. Show the evidence here to back your claims, say by describing the different outcomes for felony armed robbery, including the different levels of priors and extenuating circumstances….

Sure I was not particularly trying to argue the point with you or suggest you didn’t believe as much. I was just rereading what I wrote and want to make sure I was understood properly (I have several times phrased things badly I wanted to make sure I had been clear). I understand where you are coming from and would not ask you to change your comments etc I just decided to try to respond to Voths in my own way.

Voths
I do agree with others here. While you an interesting issue of justice reform that I should be looked at and addressed by social justice groups, I don’t see how this affects feminism or ones support of it. Even if all of work by feminists was to help address the problems faced by women (which it isn’t) it does not follow that they do not care about men or that a man should not support them.

There is no particular limit to the number of efforts or X rights groups one can support nor would a belief in gender equality be barrier to supporting a group or movement that say only supported women. Just as one could for example support gay rights activists as part of a larger goal of equality among sexual orientations. Supporting such a gay rights group would not prevent you from also supporting a group trying to fix a hypothetical problem(s) faced by straight couples.

Okay, VV, you are curious as to how all of the following statements can be true:
(1) Women qua women are disadvantaged relative to men qua men,
(2) Men are disproportionately represented amongst the prison population
(2)(a) Said men are disproportionately men who are not white and disproportionately from the lower classes.
(3) A study of history reveals, at various points, women who have exercised power and authority, even over some of their male contemporaries.

Quite easily, actually. The answer is kyriarchy. The patriarchy is a subset of the kyriarchy. Kyriarchy, basically, is patriarchy + white supremacy + classism. Those facets (and there are more, including those related to homophobia, ableism, religious bigotry, and such) intersect each other.

The end result is a pyramid, rather than a ladder. At the top of the pyramid is the kyriarch, the archetypal person who is in charge, i.e. a straight wealthy cisgendered healthy able-bodied white man who is of the correct religion and ethnic group.

So who is immediately below the kyriarch? Well, that depends on what side of the pyramid you descend. If you go down one way (the sexism side), the kyriarch is immediately followed by his female equivalent (i.e. a straight wealthy cisgendered healthy able-bodied white woman who is of the correct religion and ethnic group). Go down another way and you get the kyriarch’s brother, who is disabled. Go down a third way and you get the kyriarch’s cousin, who has fallen on hard times and is hard-up for cash. Et cetera.

The way that a given woman can outrank a given man is if the woman’s privileges (race, religion, class, religion, etc etc etc) outweigh the man’s. Or, to turn it around, the man is oppressed along more axes than the woman is.

Men in color who are from the lower classes being tossed in prison disproportionately is a combination of several factors:
(1) Racism,
(2) Classism,
and
(3) Society-wide messages about how a man is to be strong and aggressive, and protect what his his, coupled with a lack of acceptable outlets for this strength, aggression, and protection.

I would like to apologize for this one. Since writing this, I learned that this word has a gendered meaning. This was of course not the meaning I used it in here, but I still feel it should be avoided.

I try to research diminutives I use, but I wasn’t diligent enough in this case. I am truly sorry.

After this intermission, let’s get back to V.V.:

In Europe we use the term “gender equality” instead of “feminism”, and this is possibly the reason why the people that objected were mostly European.

This is either a category mistake or outright lying. Of course, since the perp mainly seems to get his info from howling antifeminst bigots, the lying might be secondhand.

The study has taken all the factors into account.

That does not seem to be the case. It’s certainly not evident.

This is an area that’s really complicated. I’m not too familiar with English/British courts, but a lot of factors go into sentencing. A lot of factors. A lot of the factors are not evenly distributed among the genders.

Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you that there’s probably sexism in most criminal systems, and that for the accused a lot of it disfavours men(at least if we discount rape and other forms of sexual assault). However, compared to the huge difference in relevant factors for differential treatment, the sexism is very slight.

With your simplistic understanding you’re miles away from defining the extent of the problem. Even the documentation for a real problem is rather shaky.

Given this, you still haven’t answered why this should be a priority. Your little simplistic suggestion that this should be done in addition to everything else doesn’t fly. Resources are always limited, if you do one thing, that’s one other thing that doesn’t get done. What’s so special about this issue.

I have several reasons it shouldn’t be addressed as a separate issue by organized feminism:

*There are far more pressing issues. For example addressing the societal factors that makes men far more likely to commit crime than women (look up “toxic masculinity sometime (but not on MRA blogs you blockhead)).
*The effect is very slight, and the effect is one of slightly more favourable treatment of women that what’s correct. Prison sentence is not a contested resource (ie, women getting less punished doesn’t entail that men get more punished, unless your government is really fucked, the sum on the prison population is not a constant) .
*Fixing other issues might also lead to improvement on this field, which is overall more fruitful
*It’s a minority interest, even in the US. As such, the issue is better adressed by criminal justice groups than by feminist groups.

@michaeld I agree with most of what you said. It was just making a case against the “feminism == gender equality” argument. Other than that personally I am fine with all the feminist causes. I think I made my point. I will be staying for 30 more minutes, to respond to any comments. Thanks for the replies to my comments.

So when the discussion is about the discrimination men face, we should politely discuss the discrimination men face. And when the discussion is about the discrimination women face, we should politely discuss the discrimination men face.

VV thinks that because some feminists (in this case, radfems) have views he dislikes, then that means that all of feminism is tainted. He is flatly unwilling to accept that feminism is a big tent with lots of subtypes, and that – while there are indeed disagreements – feminism writ large is all pointing in the same direction.

Analogy: all feminists are united in the belief that we need to go to Philadelphia. But some think that the best way to go is to drive down Interstate 76, some think we should take the train, some think that Greyhound has very agreeable rates, some think that hitchhiking sounds fun, and some are saying that we should go by air. But we all think that Philly is the place to be.

@1228 Interesting perspective. I was just talking about dealing with the symptoms first, since the cause could take a long time to tackle.

@Gnumann no offense. I probably didn’t express my self clearly. Its not that the term is never used. Feminist organizations use it all the time. It is just that organizations with an agenda orthogonal to feminism, that do not want to appear partisan and inflammatory, but still deal with womens rights, use the latter. For example all the EU projects have “gender equality” clauses, but never “feminist” clauses.

@Estleth Probably you are confusing me someone else. I never said I dislike anybody.

@Nerd The OP asked for objections to feminism. Thats why. Other than that my opinion is irrelevant to you.

Ok, I just don’t really agree. The ultimate goal of feminism is gender equality. The vast majority of the efforts have been against problems faced by women for historical and cultural reasons. One does not particularly negate the other and is at best an argument that feminists (I would suggest men in, or supportive of, feminism) spend more time on issues men face.

As an example activists fighting HIV could spend the majority of their efforts in Africa even though their ultimate goal is to rid the virus from the planet. Or atheists could spend a great amount of time trying to face local problems but still ultimately hold a more global goal.The fact that you are focusing on a particular aspect of a problem does not necessarily mean your ultimate goal isn’t a much larger one.

I totally agree with this explanation. I wouldn’t be taking about equality, if it wasn’t for those women.

That was you. So…?

Also, you say (in response to my @1228) that you want to attack the symptoms. Great! How about people who are so led attack the racism angle, people who are so led attack the religious bigotry angle, and people who are so led attack the sexism angle? You do realize that this is not a bad thing, right? Attacking at all angles?

@Gnumann+ so basically its all down to your perspective of what an Atheist movement should be.

I cannot even begin to fathom what you mean here or how you arrived on that conclusion from anything I have written.

The only piece I’ve written on any atheist movement here is as a example on how you can identify with an idea/philosophy/ideology without necessarily identifying with all adherents or organisations of adherents.

all angles should be attached. for all genders/races/colors/education level etc.

Is there a word for this idea that working towards equality for one group automatically means that you are not working for equality for other groups? That one must work for equality for all, all the time, or you are not doing it right?

@1245 No that’s not true obviously. As I said in a previous post I was just making an argument against the “feminism == gender equality” argument. Feminists can do anything they like, and I agree with most of their actions.

@1244 I made an association of the recent controversies in the atheist movement. Off topic. My initial point of gender equality vs feminism was related to how the atheist movement uses it, even if it is not clear from the text. Maybe I am just to tired I don’t know.

My initial point of gender equality vs feminism was related to how the atheist movement uses it, even if it is not clear from the text. Maybe I am just to tired I don’t know.

Protip: If you want to avoid looking like an antifeminist arsehold, don’t ever type gender equality versus feminism. It’s about as true as all atheists are satanists (or less, though I admit that I have not a census neither on the amount of satanists or female supremacists).

As far as the treatment of people who have specific concerns about definitions of words, what should be considered “justice”, or what values constitute “equality”, then I have some problems.

For instance, equal pay. The equal pay stats I have seen are based on averages across the population of women. My wife is a stay at home mom by choice. She will probably go back to work in a few years, but obviously, being out of the work force, she will have lost some income potential, this skews the averages downward for all woman, making it look like, on average, they make less. Now this is not to say that in specific professions, even with the adjustments I mention, there is not inequality, but I don’t see anyone making these arguments for where the inequalities still lie, not on this blog anyway….it seems to be very focused on rape here, but that is beside the point.

As far as rape, I, by the definition of Stephanie Z., I was raped by a woman in college. I don’t agree, and certainly don’t think that a “criminal” act was performed on me, but some people here seem to think that their definitions qualifies as a rape. See comments in “Consent is Hard”.
That, I have a problem with, because ideas like that in the law could lead society to a place where criminalizing poor judgement by two parties can ruin young lives, that is a bit scary to me, and I hesitate to sign up these black and white definitions.
Nor do I think that the justice system should be restricted to only taking the statement of a victim, and based solely on that, imprison the accused…innocent until proven guilty and all. Now some will take issue with this, I am sure, but I have yet to see a feminist address this actually real problem. I realize it is difficult, but we cannot allow an innocent person go to jail, I would rather have 50 guilty people go free, than one innocent go to prison. If someone can actually address this concern, I would be very interested.

There is also a basic distrust, especially regarding the sexual harassment policy, and it seems unfounded to me, but many are not helping build any trust with the folks who are fighting, many are building distrust. When I first heard of the whole drama, it easily led me to believe that there was an “agenda” here that was demonizing those who disagreed, and though I am not completely won over, there are some commenters here that reasonably respond to dissenting comments, which makes me see a crack in the armor here, so maybe some trust can be built.
The fear, and probably irrational one, is the fact that there is an effort to not only control behavior when hitting on women, but controlling clothing, and even controlling language that could be possibly considered offensive. Jewelry and tshirt come to mind….we must allow that, if you think the two things I listed shouldn’t, then I am sorry, I value the right to ridicule those I disagree with, as many of you apparently do as well…good on ya. It doesn’t build trust, but sometimes it has to be done, and good judgement or bad judgement on an individual basis must be used, no policy should control that… I hope you agree.

Which leads me to my final point, the “feminist” meme seems to bring with it an extreme politically correct language issue, that I personally don’t like. I will fight for equality, but if I want to call someone a derogatory name, I reserve the right to do so. Just as many of you seem to enjoy…..yet I see comments where people apologize profusely for using a word like “prat” because it is …..oh oh, gender slanted….or whatever.

The fear, and probably irrational one, is the fact that there is an effort to not only control behavior when hitting on women, but controlling clothing, and even controlling language that could be possibly considered offensive.

Paranoid ravings on your part.

It doesn’t build trust, but sometimes it has to be done, and good judgement or bad judgement on an individual basis must be used, no policy should control that… I hope you agree.

No, paranoia showing again. Policies are used by companies world-wide. Only the “players” have a problem with them. Why are you supporting the “players.

Which leads me to my final point, the “feminist” meme seems to bring with it an extreme politically correct language issue,

More paranoia. Nothing extreme about equal treatment and requiring consent. Yet, you have a problem with that. Think about why you have a problem with women really being equal. Then get back to us.

Not tonight, not from me. I am sick half to death of these flaming assclams in smegmarmalade sauce who cannot only not be bothered to show up in a thread in a timely manner, but have obviously not taken the time to read all of the 1,000+ comments, because that might threaten their brains with actual thought. Instead, they show up with the same fucking, tired, old shit smeared on some hay and announce “I have a magical sandwich of logic and reason, so you silly bitches listen up!”

Nerd, or should I say idiot, rude ass wipe!
Sorry for no context in reply, I am using an iPad making it difficult.

I said the fear was probably irrational…but maybe it’s not, based on your response, total dismissal. Predictable, you didn’t even address the concern. And the controlling clothing part is in fact REAL! So why not the language next? If you speak for the mindset, you are a lousy rep,

Conference are NOT companies!
“players” I couldn’t give a shit about. Being able to insult some like you who pisses me off, I care.

Equal treatment and requiring consent has nothing to do with using derogatory names that are gender slanted.

You pompous little prick, where have I said ANYTHING that makes women NOT equal!

why should there be a difference? There shouldn’t. Nor should you FEAR the difference, unless you are a PUA or MRA. Those are logical folks who ignore consent.

total dismissal. Predictable, you didn’t even address the concern.

There was no rational concerns to addressed. All paranoid meanderings of someone without a point. And nothing that hasn’t already been discussed in the previous 1000+ posts. Why haven’t you done your homework? Without rational fears, you will be dismissed. Now, think on why your fears are irrational, and you might figure out why you should change your attitudes.

B, your first post was a Gish gallop of many fearful claims. Pick a couple to discuss at greater length. Otherwise, others will dismiss your paranoia too. So which two misunderstandings on your part do you wish to really discuss?

Well, sorry, I have a job, a wife, and two kids, I don’t have time to comb 1000 entries, so educate me o sire.
Why should there be a difference? Conference don’t pay my f’ing salary dumbass!
I am not MRA or PUA, I find them as distasteful as feminism…..both pleading for special rights for themselves, where if the folks on both sides get off it, they could probably make some instant change happen.
When did I EVER say I ignored consent! You want to point it out dickhead!

Nerd, my first post was not a Gish of fearful claims.
There was one that addressed the general, what I think, is irrational fears about the sexual harassment policies…but I am not convinced they are irrational quite yet. I will need more information, and I guess time will tell if they work out or not…I hope they do, as long as nobody with an agenda uses them for their own gain….I have seen it in the real world, it ain’t pretty.

How about equal pay and life choices making averages look lower than they are….ie women making less money because they dropped out to raise kids?

How about innocent until proven guilty. How do we assure people convicted of rape are actually guilty if we only use a single victim statement as evidence?

I’m really glad that you are okay with what happened to you but other people in a similar situation might not take it so well. Why don’t we as a society educate each other and our kids on the importance on consent in our actions so that we aren’t rolling the dice on what happens being a good or bad event for someone.

To use a geeky example the glomp or tackle hug. Maybe you and your friends have worked out that glomping is an appropriate way to greet each other. If you meet someone new you could then also greet them with a glomp. Maybe they would be very enthusiastic and enjoy being glomped. Or maybe they suffer from arthritis or recent injuries that make that experience very painful and unpleasant for them.

Instead of guessing and finding out later maybe we could air on the side of caution and get their consent first. If they’re really out of it and don’t know what’s going on err on caution and not glomp them since they may not understand what you’re asking them. We could then teach this idea of consent to everyone so that all current and future glomps would with a tad more effort be enjoyable experiences for everyone involved instead of taking the feelings of others for granted.

Believe it or not B I bet you already agree that you have different limitations imposed on you at a convention. You probably don’t think people should be allowed to go to conventions naked because it could upset other people and make the event less enjoyable. You probably think there’s nothing wrong with singing the national anthem. But would you defend someone singing it during the keynote address?
At conventions we accept that there are limits placed upon us so that everyone can try to enjoy the event. Cause I’m not the only one paying to attend and all these other people have just as much right to enjoy the event as I do.

That is all it takes to convict someone of rape, the victim’s statement?

Of course, Janine. After all, that’s all the two years of trial I went through was, a continual repetition of my statement and the other three survivor’s statements. We just repeated ourselves for two years. Yep.

Janine
Of course women are not expected to raise kids, at least not by me, so there, mission accomplished you have a convert. However, there is a problem, you are 50% of the population, and you HAVE to have the kids if you want them…that’s a big deal, women did not used to have that, and feminism had a whole lot to do about that…love that part. Does a whole bunch for poverty, love that too!
Also, there does seem to be a compelling internal desire for many women that do have kids to want to stay home. (you know attachment hormones when breast feeding) My wife doesn’t have to, but CHOOSES to, because she and I both felt it was best for the kids. We know families that have kids in day care, and man…that is extremely difficult and stressful. I would stay home, but it happens that I make more, so I have to be the one to work. (FYI, my sister in law makes twice as much as me, so don’t go there if you want to say of course I make more because I am a man)

If someone is disruptive to the keynote address, kick them out, no policy necessary…or show up naked, though I wouldnt personally care, whatever floats your boat….BTW..that’s illegal in most places, so no need for a policy, thanks.

Sexual harassment, absolutely, a list of overly aggressive tactics, a statement of agreement that consent will always be granted for behavior, no problem. Stating what can and cannot be worn….crossing a line in my opinion.

Citation needed for the attire claim. What you haven’t done is to EVIDENCE your claims. They are nothing but paranoid claims, which can *POOF* be dismissed, until you provide EVIDENCE to show the claims are legitimate. But that has been the problem for 1000+ posts. The antifeminists can’t evidence their claims.

Janine and Caine
I am not speaking about the way it currently is with rape trial and conviction, I am sorry for whatever you went through.
I am speaking about they way the feminism ideology would seem to propose it to become if it had its way. Sure, it may have made your process much easier, no doubt. And making it based solely on a victim statement would allow a lot of men victims to get convictions easier as well….but that opens a door for the flip side, false accusations to put innocent people in jail…….
I have NEVER seen a feminist address this concern in anyway, it is like they think no one has ever, or will ever lie about being raped? I would be very interested in finding out what you think about the risks of false accusations and innocent people being put in jail, if the ideal feminist rape law wasmactually the law of the land?

I am speaking about they way the feminism ideology would seem to propose it to become if it had its way.

Citation need that feminine ideology proposes what you claim. Why can’t you EVIDENCE your claims? As Christopher Hitchens said “That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” Your who fears can *POOF* be dismissed without evidence, as they don’t exist.

I would be very interested in finding out what you think about the risks of false accusations and innocent people being put in jail, if the ideal feminist rape law wasmactually the law of the land?

Janine, so, what are the proposed methods that your feminism suggests to increase the frequency of rape convictions? I don’t save everything I read sorry.
I do know that many feminist ideas I have read suggest that only a statement should be taken from the victim about what happened, and then the accused should be interviewed.
I have seen advocacy for arresting the accused based solely on the victims statement, and that statement should also be enough to convict, withou further questioning. I guess I don’t know if that is a common view or not?

How about innocent until proven guilty. How do we assure people convicted of rape are actually guilty if we only use a single victim statement as evidence?

I find this question broad enough to require that you go to law school for the answer. We can’t so assure that people convicted of anything are actually guilty if we only use a single victim statement as evidence. Where does that leave us? Are we having far more people falsely convicted than we’re having victims who decide not to report, police who advise against filing a complaint, prosecutors who decide not to set a trial date? In what way does feminism work to unbalance the status quo in the opposite direction rather than simply level the two sides?

Let’s say that feminism puts the word out that someone who wakes up not remembering anything about the night before should check themselves for unusual bodily states. Finding any, they have the choice to go to the hospital and ask for tests. Is there an effort to unbalance the scales of justice to have advised this person not to shower and provided information about the time span in which GHB and rohypnol leave the system?

Please note: in the above paragraph, find the feminine pronoun. If feminism informs about this topic, isn’t anyone of any gender profiting from it?

And of course fear can be rational. I’m afraid that you’re not very open for examining evidence.

Voth @1202:
Having read three of your links, it is plain to see that YES there is a disparity between the number of men in prison vs the number of women. What is not clear, and is made apparent are the REASONS for that disparity. One of your links says sexism is *a* cause. Another cautions jumping to any conclusion.
You’re going to have to dig deeper if you are looking for proof that gender bias against men is the reason for the high numbers of men in prison compared to women.

Ok, well, I have been looking for the claim online, and found some references to it vaguely…but it doesn’t matter, you all don’t seem to subscribe to it, so I withhold judgement for a further discussion in the future, when I can get some data for you.

Oggie @1224, vaiyt @1216:
I am confused by both your responses to michaeld’s comment @1208. When I read hir comment, it seemed to me that xe was saying that if the anti-feminists and MRAs stopped being so hostile, things might improve for both men and women. I find no fault with that (unless you count the fact that this is unlikely to happen). Xe did not appear to be bringing up mens issues to derail a discussion about feminism.

Thanks all for the discussion overall.
I will look at the pay gap data…thanks for the link.
think you cleared up some incorrect assumptions I have made, thanks.
And I think I understand more of where you are coming from with at least these commenters perspectives.
I can’t say as I am comfortable with “feminism” as a label, too much history with that label… A lot of baggage and political correctness that doesn’t have anything to do with equality.
However your goals are worthy, just don’t let anyone hijack your definition of feminism and make it ugly….and watch out for PC policing, it’s easy to get carried away on that slippery slope.

Please tell me I did NOT just read B treating feminism and mens rights as equal ideas…
and
I really hope xe did not fucking say women are looking for special rights…

Hulk SMASH!

Equal pay for equal work is special rights?
Equal representation in politics is special rights?
Expecting the police to take you seriously when you give details of your sexual assault is special rights?
Expecting to leave the house and not be called ‘baby’, ‘momma’ or ‘ho’ is special rights?
Expecting the glass ceiling to be shattered worse than Humpty Dumpty is special rights?
Expecting to acquire contraceptives as easy as guys can a condom is special rights?
Expecting to have sole control over their bodies is special rights?

B: get out into the real world. Listen to the concerns of women. Don’t talk. Just listen.

Tony, what I found so “interesting” about B in 1264 was his haste to tell us what not to bring up in rebuttal to his points (but my wife wants it that way or my SIL makes more than me…a man!) Those, he expected, would stop us in our tracks!

For instance, equal pay. The equal pay stats I have seen are based on averages across the population of women. My wife is a stay at home mom by choice. She will probably go back to work in a few years, but obviously, being out of the work force, she will have lost some income potential, this skews the averages downward for all woman, making it look like, on average, they make less. Now this is not to say that in specific professions, even with the adjustments I mention, there is not inequality, but I don’t see anyone making these arguments for where the inequalities still lie, not on this blog anyway….it seems to be very focused on rape here, but that is beside the point.

I have seen advocacy for arresting the accused based solely on the victims statement, and that statement should also be enough to convict, withou further questioning. I guess I don’t know if that is a common view or not?

I can’t say as I am comfortable with “feminism” as a label, too much history with that label… A lot of baggage and political correctness that doesn’t have anything to do with equality.

Assertion in need of a citation. Gee, lots of assertions, not one link to any evidence to back up those assertions.

Dear lurkers, meet the typical loudmouth against feminism. All mouth, no evidence. Why can’t they do what PZ asked and supply concrete evidence to show they have informed concerns? Their OPINIONS aren’t evidence, and never will be. Because they don’t have informed concerns/OPINIONS.

How about equal pay and life choices making averages look lower than they are….ie women making less money because they dropped out to raise kids?

A question immediately follows, that is, WHY are they dropping out to raise kids? Why are they shouldering that responsibility on themselves, while men rarely feel obligated to do anything of the sort? Try to find honest answers to these questions, and you might start to understand where the problem lies. Maybe. I’m not holding my breath.

A question immediately follows…..blah, blah, blah.
That is one of the most offensive things about your “feminism” that I could possibly bring up…and thanks for reminding me about it!
What right do you have to assume the a woman dropping out of the work force to raise kids is anything other than her own choice!!!!
My wife is a wonderful mother, who loves being one, and CHOSE to stay at home and raise the kids! I am privledged to be able to earn enough money to support us all and I am honored to do so!
THIS IN NO WAY MAKES WOMEN NOT EQUAL, YOU ASSHAT!

Nerd….
I in no way need to provide you with a ciation about my OWN PERSONAL SUBJECTIVE opinion about your label!
Your label says that I cannot use certain words to insult people.
Your label says that women cannot be depicted in advertising in certain modes of undress because it “objectifies” them. (Don’t know the blog here, but someone posted something about a woman in a bikini advertising a cruise line….and all you PC folk were up in arms about objectification….BULLSHIT!)

Maybe people in your “label” cannot respectfully appreciate the beauty of a woman without ALSO respecting her as a person, but you have no right to tell me I cannot!

Maybe people in your “label” can’t handle being called nasty names that are meant to be insulting, but you have no right to tell me I cannot! (pussy, dick, cunt, asshole, prick, dickhead, whore, etc, etc..)

Tell me, how does a woman in a bikini in a cruise line ad make women unequal in this society?

Tell me, how does using some of the slurs mentioned above, make women unequal in this society?

Nerd….
Where do women…in TODAY’s society…..don’t have a choice?
Single mothers? Who is going to take care of the kids?
Divorces? Well, gee, my wife is more qualified and better at dealing with the kids than I am. I take care of them as much as I can, brush teeth, take them to events, get them ready for school, cook dinner most of the time for the whole family, etc, etc. There are some families where the women does almost all of that as well.
Where is CHOICE removed from them? I don’t see it?
I have choice too, I can help or not help….I happen to help a great deal, others do not.
What right do you have to say to what extent they should and should not help? What right do you have to judge the private balance of a relationship?
Pricks!

Nerd….
“Still no evidence to support any paranoid assertion. Ergo, not informed OPINION.”

You are the ones asserting women have no choice, I say they do, and I cited my wife as an example.

There is a problem you have….men can’t have babies, sorry.
In our current society, women do have a choice relative to their circumstance, as to what to do about raising kids or not.
I support abortion.
I support free access to birth control.
I support any family that has the dad at home, I know of several.

Please, inform me of this assertion that where women don’t have a “choice”.

I am sure, B, that your wife is utterly delightful and a fine example to us all. Her sterling qualities do not explain why …

1. Young women are paid less because they might have babies at some stage.
2. Employers assume – and they do – that in a two-parent household it will be the mother who deals with emergencies and takes up the slack. And they stick with this no matter what really happens.
3. A woman who once had a baby, however long ago, will still be penalised for the rest of her working life, no matter what qualifications and experience she racks up in the meantime.
4. A woman who has never been within 100 miles of having a baby, for whatever reason, will still be paid the lower rate which can only be justified by the fact that she may one day have a baby – up to and including her retirement party at age 68 or whatever.

I ask you to consider a possibility. Is it the case that a majority of employers long ago decided to pay women less because they could get away with it and now, when they are asked to justify that behaviour, they all rise up and shout “BAYBEEES!” because that’s the only fact about women they can come up with in a hurry?

Now back to your family. Suppose you took a couple of years off to look after your family? Would you expect to be paying a financial penalty for that 40 or 50 years hence? (Remember, it affects pensions too.)

Maureen
1. women should get equal pay
2. I am not sure employers do assume this…that would be overt discrimination and though it exists, that does not fully explain the pay gap (thanks for the links on that guys). I fully support laws making pay equal to qualifications and experience across genders.
3. Not sure about this assertion. Qualifications and experience she gains in the meantime for what? My wife is not gaining any qualifications or experience that translates into the working world right now…and that sucks, but it is just life.
4. women deserve equal pay for equal quals and experience…no question or issue there.

what does all this have to do with choices to have babies and raise them?

What right do you have to assume the a woman dropping out of the work force to raise kids is anything other than her own choice!!!!

Because for lots of women who aren’t your wife, it isn’t just their choice. (You do realize not all women are copies of your wife, right?) For many het-parent couples, one parent needs to stay home to raise the kids, the man happens to earn more than the woman (why is that?), so the financial sacrifice would be too great if the man stayed home, therefore the woman stays home, QED.

Google is your friend. (all bolds mine) From 2008:

We’ve been hearing for the past few years that women were “opting out,” choosing to stay home to raise their kids. But this new research shows that’s simply not true. Women have dropped out for gender-neutral reasons: an economic downturn that brought layoffs, outsourcing and even pay cuts, which has made the decision to drop out a fairly straightforward one for many women. And it has nothing to do with motherhood.

Indeed, our survey found widespread work/life disconnection: Women want one arrangement, but settle for another. Fifty-five percent of career-oriented stay-at-home moms we surveyed, for instance, would prefer to be working now. Equally troubling, 71 percent of mothers surveyed equate work with something done only to pick up a paycheck. Given these realities, the challenge is to get those career-oriented moms back into the talent pool and to better engage the workers who are there out of financial necessity.

We’re less likely to think the wage gap is a problem if we believe it stems from women’s individual choices—to choose one job or field of study over another, to “opt out” of the workforce to raise children, or to fail to negotiate for higher pay. These arguments, prevalent in the media, overlook important research to the contrary. For one, men are perceived as more accomplished than women even when they have the same resumes. As for women “opting out” to become mothers, author Pamela Stone shows [PDF] that many professional women who leave their jobs to engage in full-time caregiving are not “opting out” but are “pushed out”: They are stigmatized and their attempts to stay on the career track are stymied. Correspondingly, Stanford sociologist Shelley Correll found that mothers are less likely to be hired and are offered lower salaries than fathers and women without children.

Maureen
“Now back to your family. Suppose you took a couple of years off to look after your family? Would you expect to be paying a financial penalty for that 40 or 50 years hence? (Remember, it affects pensions too.)”

Suppose I took a couple years off? Yes, I would expect to lose out on education and growth within my specialty for a couple of years….and yes I would expect getting back to it would mean a loss in pay and certainly a loss in knowledge of the current state of affairs in the industry. To what extent? I don’t know, not my specialty.
Do you think if I took a couple of years off, I should just be able to jump back in the work force and have equality with my peers day one?
Women should have no worse effect that me, I agree, but there should be a negative effect…sorry, that is just the world.
Does the current pay gap account for this? No, not according to the links you guys provided me, and I accept that evidence. The pay gap is an issue and needs to be addressed.

I in no way need to provide you with a ciation about my OWN PERSONAL SUBJECTIVE opinion about your label!

Sorry fuckwit, the OP asks for anti-feminists to supply EVIDENCE as to why feminism is bad. Until you supply EVIDENCE, you have uninformed OPINION, which can and will be *POOF* dismissed as fuckwittery. Can’t you read anything?

I am speaking about they way the feminism ideology would seem to propose it to become if it had its way. Sure, it may have made your process much easier, no doubt. And making it based solely on a victim statement would allow a lot of men victims to get convictions easier as well….but that opens a door for the flip side, false accusations to put innocent people in jail…….

Funny how the possible injustice against imaginary men in a fictional scenario is always so much more important than the actual injustice suffered by millions of women (and men) now.

You are the ones asserting women have no choice, I say they do, and I cited my wife as an example.

And that’s another attack on the straw-feminist in your head. Of course women have choices, nobody claimed they had none; and because of the pay gap and bias and similar unfairnesses, often all women can do is choose the option that bites the least.

Pteryxx….
Thanks for you input.
I don’t quite buy it though, and here is why.

I have seen dual income families, both parents working.
Most of the time, this is because of necessicity, not choice, just to get enough income to live comfortably, both need to work.

My wife would rather be working, but she chose to stay home, why? Because it is better for the kids, and I can earn more than her. This is not because of the pay gap, this is because I just happen to be in a profession that can earn much more than she can.

The pay gap needs to be fixed…no question.

however…the assertion they are “stigmatized” out of the workforce is a weak and useless nonsense. The dad’s that I know who stay at home, hate the stigmatization they face, but they face it and do it because it is what is right for their families, and it is a CHOICE they made.
It is not up to the rest of society to change to make you FEEL better about the choices you make.

I would never judge a woman who chooses to work while dad stays home, I personally have the upmost respect for that.

however, I would never presume to tell other people what they can and cannot think about a woman who chooses to work which dad stays home. You guys seem to have no problem with that….and that I have a problem with. Unfortunately, people thoughts and opinions, however unfair, can cause “stigmatization”….but oh well, there is no law against that unless it infringes on the womans ability to stay at work…..and feelings have nothing to do with it!

I have choice too, I can help or not help….I happen to help a great deal, others do not.

I realise you may be new to this kind of environment, but a word in your shell-like about words and their meanings. Saying that you ‘help’ with household and child-rearing obligations is not the best way to describe what you do. It would be much clearer and better if you described yourself as taking on a fair share of these duties.

Meals, cleaning, laundry and caring for children is not “women’s work” which men can deign to reduce themselves to if they are admirable people. It’s a simple matter of parental and household obligations. Doing your fair share does not warrant applause or a medal or any other gratitude or acclaim. It’s the bare necessity of fulfilling your role in your family. The fact that far too many men fail in this ordinary assumption of adult responsibilities does not make responsible men into exceptionally wonderful human beings. It makes them sensible and competent and decent.

B:
You cannot be so obtuse as to miss the point vaiyt was making @1292. Of course it is a woman’s choice. The point was WHY did she make that choice. Social pressures on women strongly influence the decision of many women to stay at home. Religious organizations often teach that this is the natural role of a woman. For many women, these pressures are so strong and have been dominant in their lives for so long that they feel their choices are limited. When you have been raised all your life to believe the role of a woman is to be a homemaker or a teacher, many women never have the opportunity to dream of being a physicist or a biochemist.
Why are more women not in political offices?
Why are more women not CEOs?
These are good questions, and there is strong evidence in favor of gender essentialism and gender discrimination running rampant.
If you are not interested in learning why women are treated as second class citizens, get out of the way and let people who *are* concerned work to change things.

Does the current pay gap account for this? No, not according to the links you guys provided me, and I accept that evidence.

The pay gap is more than your imaginary case. What do you plan to do to fix it? That is what feminists think about. You don’t, you merely accept the status quo. Either you are part of the solution, or you are part of the problem. And you are the latter.

Pteryxx
And that’s another attack on the straw-feminist in your head. Of course women have choices, nobody claimed they had none; and because of the pay gap and bias and similar unfairnesses, often all women can do is choose the option that bites the least.

“pay gap”…sure reduces some choices, needs to be corrected, no problem.

Bias? Bias for what?
My wife has some judgements about women who don’t stay home, but not hard ones, however I imagine the bias can creep out regardless of her efforts to cover them. They are derived from her own sense of duty to the kids and our family. Do you presume to tell her how she can feel about that? That would be a source of the “stigmatization” you claim, and I imagine many people try to hid it, where others don’t….what would you presume to do about that?

Oh, I know….lets make a “anti-bias” policy that applies to everyone. Lets tell them that if they “think” a woman should stay home with the babies, that they should stop thinking it, as they may let the bias out. Or for those that don’t try to control their bias, lets make sure that in the policy we say…”if you state your opinion, even in subtle ways, that women should stay home, then we will kick you out of the country for three days until you learn your lesson.” Reductio ad absurdum.

Wow, B thinks his biased, subjective opinion is more representative of reality than the actual evidence cited by Pteryxx. This is religious style thinking. “I’m going to believe in X, no matter what evidence exists that contradicts it.”

When Sweden introduced a law that allowed couples to decide who will take a career break to spend time at home with young children, and put in place funding to allow them to do so without a significant financial cost many men took advantage of the opportunity. Strangely, career breaks to raise children are no longer considered detrimental to a person’s career prospects, and no longer impact on a person’s income.

Pteryxx
we have to live with white power groups
we have to live with black panther groups
we have to live with all kinds of hate groups that are the most blantant forms of bias possible.
We can make laws to equate the pay gap, but we cannot make laws that banish “stigma” or “racism”…..
What I suggest we do?
1. make some laws that equate the pay gap….don’t need the feminist label for that.
2. make some laws that allow men to take paternity leave….oh wait…we have those….and we don’t need the feminist label for that.
3. Keep overt discrimination of all forms out of the workplace…and we don’t need the feminist label for that.
4. let the chips fall where they may.

however…the assertion they are “stigmatized” out of the workforce is a weak and useless nonsense. The dad’s that I know who stay at home, hate the stigmatization they face, but they face it and do it because it is what is right for their families, and it is a CHOICE they made.

This led me to carry out an in-depth, qualitative study of 54 high-achieving women living in several major cities across the U.S. who fit the profile of the media depiction (white, married women with outstanding educational credentials who had formerly worked as professionals or executives but were now full-time mothers). Results from this study correct another media misperception: I found that workplace pushes play an equal and arguably stronger role in women’s decisions to quit than family pulls, and that what looked like a “choice¨ (and, indeed, was understood as such by women themselves) was often far from it.

Survey research finds that mothers suffer a substantial wage penalty,
although the causal mechanism producing it remains elusive. The
authors employed a laboratory experiment to evaluate the hypoth-
esis that status-based discrimination plays an important role and an
audit study of actual employers to assess its real-world implications.
In both studies, participants evaluated application materials for a
pair of same-gender equally qualified job candidates who differed
on parental status. The laboratory experiment found that mothers
were penalized on a host of measures, including perceived compe-
tence and recommended starting salary. Men were not penalized for,
and sometimes benefited from, being a parent. The audit study
showed that actual employers discriminate against mothers, but not
against fathers.

Sucking it up doesn’t make discrimination magically go away.

I would never judge a woman who chooses to work while dad stays home, I personally have the upmost respect for that.

however, I would never presume to tell other people what they can and cannot think about a woman who chooses to work which dad stays home. You guys seem to have no problem with that….and that I have a problem with.

Point to where anyone here said women should be judged for the choices they make. Those strawfeminists in your head are getting in the way of your arguments.

I don’t care if it is cited research.
I am sure it is true.
But who the hell cares?
The only way to change society at the level of thought in individuals is to buck up against it.
Atheist have to do this by speaking out against religion, because it is that bias that keeps the bias against atheists in check.
To change the stigmatization of women not staying home with the kids? More women need to make that choice and face up to the stigmatization! BUT, that can’t get turned into “if your a woman and you stay home, your a loser”, which is the stigmatization I see from some of the comments here.

Nerd….fallacy alert.
I used some language that some MRAs use and I am now labeled an MRA.
I don’t like some of the stuff from MRAs, as much as I don’t like some of the stuff from “feminists”.
Just labeling a statement as from an MRA doesn’t make it not work thinking about.

Matt….
“When Sweden introduced a law that allowed couples to decide who will take a career break to spend time at home with young children, and put in place funding to allow them to do so without a significant financial cost many men took advantage of the opportunity. Strangely, career breaks to raise children are no longer considered detrimental to a person’s career prospects, and no longer impact on a person’s income.”

Tony….
I accept the evidence provided by Pteryxx on “stigmatization”.
But read my other posts please…..evidence that people “think” a certain way is one thing….changing how people “think” is another.
I suppose you people actually think you are doing something about that in these comment sections, guess what, you are not!

Women who make the choice to face the stigmatization that Pteryxx shows do, it isn’t anything but that which can change the hearts and minds of people. They have to see that the proposition works before they can change their judgements in their minds.

Civil rights movement did not get rid of racism….its still here, alive and healthy. Any progress on that came from the initial laws of civil rights which removed the legal issues….now it is up to the minority communities to do the hardest work of all….change hearts and minds. I think they have made great progress, and I think women have made great progress, and will continue to do so. Where the law can be used, it should be, but this “stigmatization” is a heart and mind issue.

If it was all about individual choices and loss of competence then the lower pay would kick in

– only after someone had been out of the workforce for a significant period

– only in those trades and professions where that absence made a difference which could not be made up in the 2 to 6 weeks it takes anyone to tune into a new job

but in fact the pay differential begins straight out of school, straight out of college even for women with first class degrees.

As it happens, this laptop is propped up on a sewing machine. I use it for pleasure, others earn their living with such things but it is not a skill you lose once you have it. It is one of the many jobs where being out of the workforce even for 20 years makes no significant difference. Did you see the movie Dagenham? Basically true and it showed women machinists graded as unskilled, so that they could be paid less!

I have had the pleasure of competing for a job where I already worked, against good internal and external candidates, and getting it. And my first task in the new role? To go off an give the chief accountant a bollocking while he slowly took in the idea that, no, he could not drop the salary by 5% because a woman had been appointed.

Meanwhile, my fried Claire has been out of full-time work and caring for her children for several years. She’s able to earn a little with one of her hobbies but it is not what she wants to do as a career. She’s just done her Masters and been told by the University that when she’s ready for the doctorate she only has to say and the place, supervisor, etc will be there.

So when Claire goes back to full-time work in, maybe 2015, is she there on the doorstep as an out-of-touch breeder or as a highly qualified potential employee who should be well rewarded.

I am getting the impression, B, that it’s not so much malice with you as inch-thick rose coloured specs and too much confidence you already know all about it. You don’t.

“Why do you continue to pontificate on a subject you know nothing about ?”
Wow!
You presume I have nothing to add or learn?

YET ANOTHER REASON I DEPISE FEMINISM!
It seems that feminist think they have a corner on the market on exactly what everyone should think about the very large subject of women’s rights.
I agree with many of the points you make!
I learned about some things I had some questions on, and I thanked you!
And you presume that I have nothing to contribute to the conversation because…well, you just have it all figured out.
Well…wow!

I ask you again, why do you continue to pontificate on a subject you know nothing about ? You failed to answer last time. If you do not answer this time it will be taken as an admission your part of willful ignorance.

Matt,
To expand on my issue with Sweden.
Small country.
Very homogeneous country.
Very high taxes and upward mobility is stifled on an individual level.
I can’t go into and economics lesson here…my specialty…but you have a lot to learn as far as what is affordable and what isn’t, as well as where the money comes from.

I did not do anything that you said.
I don’t “hate them bitches”, project much?
I respect women as equals.
I want them to get equal pay for equal work…I have said that many times.
I want them to make their own choices, and most I know actually do!

I don’t like the subtext of your label is not equal to I don’t think women are equal.

Civil rights movement did not get rid of racism….its still here, alive and healthy.

Alive, but not healthy. Especially in the younger ages. Funny how getting to know people and seeing them as equals instead of their bigotted stereotypes helped dramatically. This is a status quo argument. You pretend to be progressive, but are really regressive. Dishonest to the core.

After all, those who have honesty and integrity can back up their OPINION with evidence. People without keep strawmen in huge supply, like you do with strawwomen.

I can’t go into and economics lesson here…my specialty…but you have a lot to learn as far as what is affordable and what isn’t, as well as where the money comes from.

Oh, a liberturdian tell. Not surprising, the longer you argue, the more your lies, arrogance, and ignorance come to fore. And, of course, you think fallaciously must pretend to be one of us with concerns to be heard. That is called concern trolling a dishonest methodology.

Compare that to “this is what I believe, and this (link) is the evidence to support that OPINION”. Honesty and integrity personified.

The only way to change society at the level of thought in individuals is to buck up against it.

Yeaaah, no. I’ll get to that.

To change the stigmatization of women not staying home with the kids? More women need to make that choice and face up to the stigmatization!

Yeah, no. Having some women who actually do the jobs is just ONE factor, but you can’t just assume widespread cultural bias falls from the sky and women alone have to shovel it. Those hiring decisions get made by PEOPLE, who have a responsibility to acknowledge when their biases don’t match reality and compensate for them.

BUT, that can’t get turned into “if your a woman and you stay home, your a loser”, which is the stigmatization I see from some of the comments here.

Again, where? What comment here claimed that? Because it’s BS, and I think you’re seeing it on the inside of your eyeballs, not the outside.

Anyway, from your later comment:

Where the law can be used, it should be, but this “stigmatization” is a heart and mind issue.

You’re assuming the only possible solutions are a) laws, and b) women sucking it up. Not true. Hiring bias can be obviated somewhat by voluntary tactics such as anonymized resumes and diversity commitment by employers. Cultural bias can be countered by showing diverse role models, especially for kids. Look into chilly climate and stereotype threat research – they produce recommendations all the time. (Start with the links roundup in the sidebar of this blog.)

And:

I suppose you people actually think you are doing something about that in these comment sections, guess what, you are not!

Yeah, actually, over the last year these comment sections have gotten a lot of word out about bias research and bias-countering tactics, have encouraged people to speak up at their workplaces and give suggestions to their employers, and been instrumental in getting community conferences to adopt anti-harassment policies. You just learned information about the pay gap and stigmatization *you* didn’t know, right?

So why’s it so important to you to complain about the feminism *label* and tell ‘us people’ how judgemental (citation needed) and useless this is? You’re commenting IN a comment section.

Matt, you are yelling at B just because B has problems with the baggage and history of feminism. Why else did he think that feminists were going to change the laws that just a witness’s statement would be enough to convict a man of rape.

Rhetorically speaking is for abject losers like liberturds. We are have an evidence based discussion whether you want to or not. You either get with the program and present evidence to back your inane rhetoric, or you shut the fuck up.

Unevidenced OPINION (rhetoric) can and will be dismissed as fuckwittery. Which is everything you have said to date. Nothing is taken except as lies an bullshit.

What right do you have to assume the a woman dropping out of the work force to raise kids is anything other than her own choice!!!!

I don’t need to “assume” anything, you fucking idiot. It’s simple statistical fact. Were such a decision a free choice, why would it fall overwhelmingly on the hands of women? There’s no inherent reason for it to be so. The reason is cultural – an expectation that women, and only women, drop their goals and careers for childcare.

If women want to choose to be housewives, more power to them. The problem is that, in today’s society, it isn’t really a choice.

Matt,
To expand on my issue with Sweden.
Small country.
Very homogeneous country.
Very high taxes and upward mobility is stifled on an individual level.
I can’t go into and economics lesson here…my specialty…but you have a lot to learn as far as what is affordable and what isn’t, as well as where the money comes from.

Except that socioeconomic mobility is higher in Sweden than in the U.S. (Source). So much for economics being your specialty, nay?

If women want to choose to be housewives, more power to them. The problem is that, in today’s society, it isn’t really a choice.

And what we find when measures are put in place to make it a real choice is that men increasingly choose to stay at home to look after children, and that decisions are based on what the parents actually want, rather than being forced on them by economic necessity or societal expectations.

Nerd, to be fair, Twisty from I blame the patriarchy has done such an intellectual exercise using satire once that I know of, and I’ve seen some support for the satirical concept from some one or two others, as you can see at Rage against the Manchine here:

It’s clear that it is not something that’s actually being activated for any more than poor children becoming a food source was something actually being activated for. It’s a hypothetical, satirical and hyperbolic narrative postulating reversal in the way men and women are treated with regards to rape to make the point that if (non rape victim) men were the ones who were treated the way rape victims are currently, that shit would never fly.

If one is reading literally and without the fuller context of the discussion at the time and the clear frustration at the current system, I can see why some people could say that there are feminists who advocate for that.

It’s kind of like reading Dworkin: You have to read it all within the context of the place and time it was written, following the complex argument from the beginning. There’s plenty to cherry pick from, for example, I want a twenty-four hour truce during which there is no rape (a speech she gave to a primarily male pro-feminists) to make her sound like some MRA’s worst nightmare, but if you follow the entire argument from the beginning, she does make a proper argument (not that you have to agree with said argument, just that it’s not just delusional raving, as some people have made her work out to be).

BTW, that speech (which is published transcribed) is really, really excellent and must-read. I sure as hell don’t agree with everything Dworkin said or did, but this speech is one of the examples of why she was so damn effective in the time that she was.

And of course while I typed and researched, the thread exploded. So much for me thinking it’s an old thread and would be dead-ish! My comment at 1353 was in response to Nerd of Redhead @ 1290. My apologies.

Matt,
To expand on my issue with Sweden.
Small country.
Very homogeneous country.
Very high taxes and upward mobility is stifled on an individual level.
I can’t go into and economics lesson here…my specialty…but you have a lot to learn as far as what is affordable and what isn’t, as well as where the money comes from

Except that socioeconomic mobility is higher in Sweden than in the U.S. (Source). So much for economics being your specialty, nay?

I might also add that all the nordic countries and Austria have rather high tax rates. See for example here (Though comparing tax rates is a mess, and I can’t vouch for the exactness of this).

All the Nordic countries (except Iceland) have roughly the same level of homogeneity (If we discount Swedish migration to Finland).

If one is reading literally and without the fuller context of the discussion at the time and the clear frustration at the current system, I can see why some people could say that there are feminists who advocate for that.

That is why citations are needed for such claims, so one can get context. Many creationists (or liberturds) will cherry-pick or quotemine a quotation to back up their claim. But, like you said, one looks at the bigger picture and the context of the quotation, it is obvious something else is going on, either humor, rhetorical question to be refuted, or the overall paper doesn’t support the claim. I really had a feeling it was something like that.

B:
Thete are multiple ways to accomplish a goal. That you cannot understand that does not mean othrts are similarly saddled with a lack of imagination.

As for your claim that nothing is being accomplished here, that is flat out wrong. We have had people tell us how reading our arguments, learning to be more skeptical, or embracing feminism has changed them for the better. Much the same way the Gay Rights Movement has come so far: one person at a time.

Btw, your personal experiences are not indicative of others. Nor is your bias reflective of reality.

I believe B has had his time in the spotlight. He too has failed to provide well reasoned, supported arguments against economic, social, and political equality for women.
who will be the next contender in ‘The Thread That Will Not Die’?

My wife has some judgements about women who don’t stay home, but not hard ones, however I imagine the bias can creep out regardless of her efforts to cover them. They are derived from her own sense of duty to the kids and our family.

Sorry! Just think, I read that stupid book in ’74, when I was, um…16. *Everyone* was talking about that shit, the whole ‘greet him at the door wearing saran wrap!’ in particular. It got a lot of snorts from my crowd, to say the least. I was already neck deep in feminism at that point, so her particular brand of crap was not welcome.

Glad I missed out on that. When I did start paying attention to feminist issues in my early teens (late seventies, early eighties), the passing of ERA was still a concern. And Phyllis Schlafly was all over TV will her Stop ERA campaign. I remember why I first really started to dislike her. They were afraid that women would be sent to the front lines in war time if ERA were passed. They kept stressing how wrong that was.

I was struck by the assumption that men going off to war was just fine. And that bothered me.

My wife has some judgements about women who don’t stay home, but not hard ones, however I imagine the bias can creep out regardless of her efforts to cover them. They are derived from her own sense of duty to the kids and our family.

First: Do you think he’ll allow her? It might get in the way of her “duties”.

I remember reading an article in (I think) Time ~1980 where Phyllis Schafly was quoted basically saying “a virtuous woman is seldom accosted” as if this would solve all sexual harassment and rape. Of course, the fact that seldom does not equal never wasn’t an issue for her. (Naturally non-virtuous women couldn’t be raped in her worldview.) This was shortly after I did a speech on rape for a class* (part of my research was reading Against Our Will by Susan Brownmiller, which was an eye opener for the naive and sheltered girl I was at the time). I have despised Phyllis Schafly ever since. A couple of years later I wore my “The Moral Majority is Neither” button with great pride.

*My classmates seem to think the topic was humorous. You could say I had a rather hostile audience. It was definitely the hardest class presentation I have ever done.

Now I’m reminiscing about my older feminist friend from VT who, along with some other awesome ladies, formed “Ladies Against Women” to satirically protest Schlafly’s appearance there. They dressed in stereotypically feminine clothes and gave speeches about how condoms are like tiny concentration camps for sperm. Great stuff. She got it on video, too, otherwise I’d not have known about it. Record everything!

May I ask everyone’s forbearance while I go back a way and address one of B’s many misapprehensions? We didn’t have time to do it before: there were so many other points on which to challenge him.

To save everyone’s scroll button, here’s what B said.

1268

B
4 January 2013 at 12:13 am (UTC -6)

Janine and Caine I am not speaking about the way it currently is with rape trial and conviction, I am sorry for whatever you went through. I am speaking about they way the feminism ideology would seem to propose it to become if it had its way. Sure, it may have made your process much easier, no doubt. And making it based solely on a victim statement would allow a lot of men victims to get convictions easier as well….but that opens a door for the flip side, false accusations to put innocent people in jail……. I have NEVER seen a feminist address this concern in anyway, it is like they think no one has ever, or will ever lie about being raped? I would be very interested in finding out what you think about the risks of false accusations and innocent people being put in jail, if the ideal feminist rape law wasmactually the law of the land?

There are so many myths and half-baked ideas tied up in those few words that it is hard to know where to begin. So, let us start with a crime which is not often seen as a sex crime, althought it can be – murder.

Murder? Yep, in the UK – don’t know enough about other jurisdictions – you can get a conviction for murder without a corpse. It doesn’t happen often and when it does it’s the result of bloody hard work on the forensics, on witness statements, on known patterns of behaviour, until the prosecuting team can put before a judge a case strong enough to prove means, motive and opportunity.

Far from wanting a system where any dozy bird – we are all dozy birds in B’s book – can wander into a police station, tell a half-arsed story and Hey! Presto! some innocent bloke is banged up for 20 years, feminists tend to be trying to get the full protection of the law. Yes, and we sometimes campaign for laws to be updated, or re-worded or old and discredited laws to be repealed. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/03/california-appeals-court-_n_2406167.html

If B were a rational being he would be far better employed campaigning for all the rape kits in police stores across the US to be – wait for it! – actually processed instead of being put away and forgotten. Or he could argue against the system where a young officer, perhaps dealing with with their first sex crime, can unilaterally decide no crime was committed. No check-list, no need to consult a colleague with more experience or specialist training. Both, we know, have led to serial rapists going on their merry way for years and serial killers fitting in two or three more murders before someone finally joins the dots.

And then there’s the one about all the false allegations. Oh, those false allegations! Have a look at this one – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Worboys – where even the police now believe there were 100 victims or this one – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soham_murders – where a pattern of sexual assaults was in the bin with all the other so-called false allegations – not sufficiently interesting to record or pass on.

I don’t have access to journals so can only offer this one – http://vaw.sagepub.com/content/16/12/1318.full.pdf+html – which I know from my learning on this very blog confirms that false reports of sex crimes are no higher than for any other offence. Indeed, common sense says that with the hard time given to anyone trying to report rape there must be millions of actual rapes, most of which could have been established in court given a bit of diligence, actual rapes we will never know about.

Am I crazy to expect that when I go into the witness box and give evidence on oath then my word will be as good as anyone else’s? So what would this “feminist rape law” be then? Pure superstition, that’s what.

If y’all read only one paper about false rape allegation rates, this is The One. The first half lays out the criteria for classifying a rape accusation as false, and critiques oft-cited papers that don’t hold up; the second half, along with the original research, contains an overview of *credible* research such as this:

Of the 2,643 rape cases reported to the police, 216 (8.2%) were classified by the police
as false allegations. However, some of these classifications were based on police skepticism
about victims who were mentally ill, about victims whose statements contained
inconsistencies, and about victims who had been drinking or using drugs. Classifying a
case as a false allegation on these bases, the researchers noted, violated the police agencies’
own classification rules. Those rules stipulate that a case can only be classified as a false
allegation if “there is a clear and credible admission by the complainants, or where there
are strong evidential grounds” (Kelly et al., 2005, p. 50). Applying those agency rules,
the researchers recalculated the frequency of false allegations and found that 67 of the
2,643 (2.5%) cases actually met the criteria.
The researchers concluded,

There is an over-estimation of the scale of false allegations by both police officers
and prosecutors which feeds into a culture of skepticism, leading to poor communication
and loss of confidence between complainants and the police. . . . There is
some evidence of poor investigation and understanding of the law, and in some
cases, there has been an emphasis on discrediting features only, by the police and
CPS. . . . Categorization of cases by the police is internally inconsistent within and
between force areas. (Kelly et al., 2005, p. xii)

From the discussion:

It is notable that in general the greater the scrutiny applied to police classifications,
the lower the rate of false reporting detected. Cumulatively, these findings contradict
the still widely promulgated stereotype that false rape allegations are a common
occurrence.
In the emotionally charged public discourse about sexual violence, it is often the case
that assertions are made without reference to research data. Such assertions not only undermine
rational discourse but also damage individual victims of sexual violence. The stereotype
that false rape allegations are a common occurrence, a widely held misconception
in broad swaths of society, including among police officers, has very direct and concrete
consequences. It contributes to the enormous problem of underreporting by victims of
rape and sexual abuse. It is estimated that between 64% and 96% of victims do not report
the crimes committed against them (Fisher et al., 2000; Perkins & Klaus, 1996), and a
major reason for this is victims’ belief that his or her report will be met with suspicion or
outright disbelief (Jordan, 2004).

Depends on how one defines feminism or what sort of flavor of feminism they are subscribed to. If that feminism you’re a part of is “men are evil, female should be #1!” then no, I’m not interested in the next sentence you have to say.

If you’re a part of the feminism flavor that likes to espouse that women can’t ever rape anyone, then again, sorry I’m not interested in the next sentence you have to say.

If you’re simply part of the very bland feminism that simply states that in some instances of society, men and women aren’t equal to each other, and we should make them equal by either increasing equal opportunity or reducing whatever gender has some edge on the other, then congrats, we can probably talk to one another.

Depends on how one defines feminism or what sort of flavor of feminism they are subscribed to. If that feminism you’re a part of is “men are evil, female should be #1!” then no, I’m not interested in the next sentence you have to say.

No, there is no such dependence.
PZ made it explicit in the OP: “Most importantly, if you think feminism, that is equality for men and women and opposition to cultural institutions that perpetuate inequities, is irrational, let’s see you explain your opposition rationally.”

If you’re a part of the feminism flavor that likes to espouse that women can’t ever rape anyone, then again, sorry I’m not interested in the next sentence you have to say.

You clearly imagine yourself an expert in these matters.

If you’re simply part of the very bland feminism that simply states that in some instances of society, men and women aren’t equal to each other, and we should make them equal by either increasing equal opportunity or reducing whatever gender has some edge on the other, then congrats, we can probably talk to one another.

Cody, may I ask you to link to two organizations, 21st century speeches, articles, or papers? The first one would demonstrate the “men are evil, female should be #1” feminism. The second should be to the “women can’t ever rape anyone” feminism.

Besides which, feminism was defined in the original post.

So let’s try an experiment. Let’s hear from some of these anti-feminists. I’d like them to comment here and explain themselves, and to do so a little more deeply than just reiterating dogmatic excuses. If you think feminism is a religion, explain why, and be specific. If you think feminism is unsupported by the evidence, explain what evidence opposes the principles of feminism. If you think it’s wrong for the skeptic movement to have a social agenda, explain what you think it should be doing that has no social implications.

Most importantly, if you think feminism, that is equality for men and women and opposition to cultural institutions that perpetuate inequities, is irrational, let’s see you explain your opposition rationally.

Talks about how some radical feminists would rather be interested in female superiority than equality. And no, sorry I didn’t have time to peruse the rest of the comments, no reason for other commenters to be assholes to me.

Yes, I understand what PZ said about how the definition of feminism, what my comment was about is when I talk to OTHER people on what THEY feel what feminism is.

So you didn’t really address the OP; rather, you thought a discursive dismissal of what you think that other people consider feminism to be, suggesting it has many definitions but not-so-neatly evading the question.

No, I don’t, but thanks for using me to play in some sort of feigned-expert fantasy.

So, you consider your knowledge of feminism less than expert.

(How would you rate it?)

Talks about how some radical feminists would rather be interested in female superiority than equality. And no, sorry I didn’t have time to peruse the rest of the comments, no reason for other commenters to be assholes to me.

Have you actually read that book?

You don’t think that had you read the comments, you would be in little doubt as to what PZ refers to as feminism?

You don’t think that what you might want to say might have already been said and addressed?

(You think your gambit of “many kinds of feminism” is a worthwhile one because you haven’t read the comments)

—

I usually come here to read about PZ getting mad, drama’s sorta funny on the internet

Copying something off of Wikipedia* and pretending that you’ve come up with it on your own is the intellectual equivalent of a toddler shitting next to a toilet. The fact that you think you’ve done something to be proud of speaks volumes about you.

*Unless of course you actually wrote that Wikipedia article. And since you are not Nick Levinson, who is not such a fuckwit, you’re a plagiarizing dipshit as well as a regular one.

John, to be quick, I don’t oppose equality between genders outline in the OP (if we are talking about equal opportunity), probably a better primer would be what frame of equality would be sufficient to be a base to the movement.

>You don’t think that had you read the comments, you would be in little doubt as to what PZ refers to as feminism?

I did read it, and posted my comments anyways. First World Anarchy! /s

[1] John, to be quick, I don’t oppose equality between genders outline in the OP (if we are talking about equal opportunity), [2] probably a better primer would be what frame of equality would be sufficient to be a base to the movement.

>why are you so heartily evading talking about feminism and the problem you have with it and instead focus relentlessly on how you perceived yourself to be perceived?

I’m evading now? I thought that discussion was done, do you want to start another about how pies are baked? The reason I did the follow up was because you guys enjoy using a good strawman to make yourselves appear witty. Almost like /r/atheism like (you might fit in great over there!)

Ooh even better:

>(Fallacious reasoning)

Ya, because if I used a fallacy, my whole point is instantly wrong and I fulfill the mindless critique of the commenters’ insult. (I think that’s the fallacy fallacy, you might have to crack a book and put on some librarian glasses for that).

Can we keep going? I have a quarter of a fifth left to finish, and I don’t have a problem eating precious bandwidth of a website.

Finished my fifth, have a good night! I suggest getting cherry mechanical keyboards, they’re good on the joints while you guys whine, bitch, and moan about people (on a free thought blog, no less!) and if someone has a slightly off topic comment, well then go ape-shit on them and insult them!

You guys represent the skeptic community so well :) If only you had neck-beards.

These pseudo-feminists that you’re so intimately familiar with that you had to copy a reference from Wikipedia of a paper you haven’t read just to show they exist? Oh yeah, clearly they’re huge factors in the misrepresentation of feminism. We should really be careful about them.

My argument is that feminism should take care to not be misrepresented by pseudo-feminists which cause feminism to be portrayed as female supremacy. That’s really it.

By exactly what methods do you propose any group could prevent a pseudo-group from misrepresenting them?

The history of misrepresentation suggests that the solution to oppositional propaganda is to promote more knowledge and practice of critical thinking, so that a better educated audience can more easily be brought to acknowledge baseless assertions. Y’know, that skepticism thing.

Another attitude filled idjit without real evidence, and the ability to discuss it intelligently. The antifeminists are still batting 0.000. It’s like they have nothing, know they have nothing, but must say something, making themselves and their arguments look inane.

For your second part, just search some extremist pseudo-feminist blogs on Google, too hard for you? How about Betty Mclellan, oooh you could even visit ihatemen.org. If you’re fingers are broken, well that’s one thing, otherwise peruse the web.

You know, it’s the same thing with trying to avoid asshole atheists which would malign other atheists.

>You make the claims, you either supply the links or you acknowledge tacitly you are pulling stuff out of your ass. Welcome to science.

ooooh, the sophist is strong in this one. Didn’t know I was making a scientific claim. Are you going to use the phrase “cognitive dissonance” next and prance your supposed intellectual superiority because you’re a non-believer? That would be awesome.

Ah, my fellow “skeptics”, continually showing that when the in-group gives you the goods, your skepticism fails you entirely. Have fun, good day.

Any claim, doesn’t have to be scientific. You have to supply evidence that really says what you claim is right. When you dismiss the need to supply said evidence, and try to tell us to look it you, you can never make your case.

For example, you link to a person, not an article. Where is it said what you claim is said? You are a lazy asshole.

Ah, my fellow “skeptics”, continually showing that when the in-group gives you the goods, your skepticism fails you entirely. Have fun, good day.

I’ve been a skeptic for 25+ years, and I am skeptical of self-described skeptics who show no skepticism of certain claims. You accept what you want to hear, not what the evidence says. I don’t believe your skepticism is sincere and properly used.

When you have finished mentally fapping over all the varieties of pseudo-opressed, please enlighten us with regard to “female supremacy”. You can provide us with historical examples of this “female supremacy”?

(There are good reasons why I suspect you cannot. But give it a try anyway.)

>You can provide us with historical examples of this “female supremacy”?

Historically in (most) countries women were not allowed to be military combatants, allowing them to avoid a larger number of women killed in combat action cumulatively. (Though I agree women should have the equal opportunity to choose to participate in combat scenarios, I would think that being prevented from dying by being told you can’t participate in direct combat is a plus, that’s a different discussion though)

All she [ie: Sommers] can show is that feminists are attacking her ‘boys-will-be-boys’ concept of boyhood, just as she attacks their more flexible notion. The difference between attacking a concept and attacking millions of real children is both enormous and patently obvious. Sommers’s title, then, is not just wrong but inexcusably misleading… Sommers’s book is a work of neither dispassionate social science nor reflective scholarship; it is a conservative polemic.

Historically in (most) countries women were not allowed to be military combatants, allowing them to avoid a larger number of women killed in combat action cumulatively.

Gee,not making your point, since armies were historically a male enterprise. Get real. This is why I’m skeptical of skeptics like you. You are selectively skeptical.

Lighter sentences for similar crimes committed. (link to huff post, but notes author, UoM Law Professor)

No link to the original paper, and videos aren’t evidence. In case you hadn’t noted, that was discussed above. The England example showed that the sentences were the same for the same level of priors and extenuating circumstances. But, overall, women had less priors an less violence to their crimes. And extenuating circumstances like killing an abusive spouse. Still not making your case…

Yes a paid shill from a RWA think tank, whose job is to find/imagufactur any evidence to support continued status quo patriarchy. This is an example of a skeptic not being properly skeptical. But CH would never admit his bias.

Historically in (most) countries women were not allowed to be military combatants, allowing them to avoid a larger number of women killed in combat action cumulatively.

And the civilian women in war zones frequently get captured as trophies, raped, and/or slaughtered as an insult to their male counterparts, rather than killed specifically in formal combat action. Yay?

Lighter sentences for similar crimes committed.

…and you think the most parsimonious explanation is ‘female supremacy’ ?

Whether these patterns of more lenient sentencing for women reflect unwarranted disparities
or legitimate sentencing considerations that happen to disproportionately benefit women has been
the subject of lively debate. Analyses of data and case law have suggested that judges’ paternalistic
attitudes toward women might hold women to be more vulnerable and sympathetic and less
responsible than men (Nagel & Johnson, 1994; Segal, 2000; Schazenbach, 2004). Differences may
arise from enduring attitudes that hold women more responsible for child care.

Part of the more lenient treatment may arise, however, from differences between the genders
that are relevant to sentencing but not well captured by the available data. Several commentators
have noted that women offenders are often among the least culpable members of criminal
conspiracies, yet are subject to lengthy sentences due to the conduct of their accomplices, on whom
they may be emotionally or financially dependent (Demleitner, 1995).

From what I can see, it’s heavily dependent on the author’s custom-made statistical analysis choices, which she proposes do a better job of capture than the traditional ones. I’m not well suited to parse the kerfuffle.

From what I can see, it’s heavily dependent on the author’s custom-made statistical analysis choices, which she proposes do a better job of capture than the traditional ones. I’m not well suited to parse the kerfuffle.

The conclusion appeared to be that the federal prosecutors were making decisions early in the process of cases that reduced potential punishment, not that judges were handing out lighter sentences after conviction. As indicated by your citation, this likely came from not being direct participants in the more violent aspects of the crime, and dependent upon those who were.

I don’t think I am going to criticize Cody. The poor dear may think I am dogging him. Or that I am pissy or mad or something.
Poor guy must not be accustomed to being criticized publicly, so he equates said criticism-which also contains some VHWs (vewwy harsh words)-with people being pissy.

(Does this thread have: A benign and benevolent tardigrade dictator for life, 2IC, a politburo, a double-pape, a public enemy number one (who happens to be a sock puppet of Rebecca Watson to boot), a lolstar,…. etc etc ad infinitum… HUH? I think not!)

How about equal pay and life choices making averages look lower than they are….ie women making less money because they dropped out to raise kids?

Lol, how about equal number of men making less money because they dropped out to raise kids? Hahaha. Oh, whew. (I hope Chas doesn’t drop in to admonish me for ignoring my mammalian programming or whatever.)

Continuing with B’s magical thinking though, let’s say his desire to be a stay at home dad was greater than his wife’s even though he made more money; surely that life choice is worth some sacrifice? And you’d be doing your part (as you understand it) to solve the pay gap — your lifetime earnings would be going down because you “dropped out to raise kids” and your wife’s would advance because she soldiered on to break the glass cieling!!

(Does this thread have: A benign and benevolent tardigrade dictator for life, 2IC, a politburo, a double-pape, a public enemy number one (who happens to be a sock puppet of Rebecca Watson to boot), a lolstar,…. etc etc ad infinitum… HUH? I think not!

Matrifocal societies appear in various parts of Africa, with ? minority peoples in China and, apparently, in Sardinia.

No evidence of a fully matriarchal society in historical times. I have heard the term applied somewhat loosely to places where women get a slightly better deal than the people next door or where a passing journalist hears 3 men complain about the injustice of it all!

1. Most died out a long time ago. At least before a proper historical record was kept. We do know about Divine being female, pretty much universally in earlier times, from all the artifacts pertaining to Earth Mother cults.

2. Another important point is that there was a much smaller population prior to the advent of large settlements. Groups would survive through co-operation rather than martial might.There would then not have been a matriarchal “mutatis mutandis” version of the patriarchy.

3.Though, for example, you might find dominant males amongst many primates, IIRC, it is the older females who weild the real political power (enough to depose males.)

>Cody, I think you are a Stepford MRA, wether you are even aware of it or not.

No, I’m not, and your characterization of me supporting inane gender roles is noted. The only “MRA” part of me is where I on the flip side of the coin of feminism also look to make sure that both genders are treated equally, not that one side gets favoritism, and those areas that get favoritism should be eliminated, whether in scope of opportunity or however farther you want to go.f

For Esteleth, yes, I’m aware of what radical feminism is (I should apologize for equating pseudo-feminism with rad-feminism).

A better question from me (an egalitarian) would be why atheism+ focuses more specifically on feminism than other equality issues, such as GLBT, socio-economic statuses, and the like, or why it’s even called atheism+ when humanism does the exact same thing (dependent on your flavor).

I’d also like to apologize for being an ass, forums aren’t generally my thing because of the fact that reading text is, well a bit harder to parse than talking to people.

YES, I do realize that anything moving away from “men and women should be equal” isn’t feminism, I believe I outlined that in my second or third comment, and for those who called my one citation a quack should explain better than just saying she’s a quack (I’m also here to learn too).

A better question from me (an egalitarian) would be why atheism+ focuses more specifically on feminism than other equality issues, such as GLBT, socio-economic statuses, and the like, or why it’s even called atheism+ when humanism does the exact same thing (dependent on your flavor).

(Personal observation, not canonical).

Atheism+ came about because of the extreme overreaction to Rebecca Watsons threat to eunuchize every male gentle admonition to men asking that they not objectify women. Since then, we have been told, repeatedly, that there is no sexism in the atheist community; there is sexism in the atheist community but it is less than that among the religious so we are good; that any report by a woman that she was harassed is a misunderstanding, an over reaction, or true but should be hushed up because it will scare women away from conferences; and, finally, that publicized sexual harassment policies for conferences are not needed because the problem has been exaggerated. Atheism+ is bout equal rights for all humans — men, women, LGBT, the disabled, minorities, economic rights, the elderly, the young, you name it — but has its roots in the extreme patriarchal Abrahamic misogyny of the last 18 or so months. The reason we (I consider myself an A+er but there is nothing formal about it for me) are currently fighting so hard against the misogyny wing of the atheist community is that it exists, it is is vocal, and it is impossible to have a discussion anywhere on FtB about women’s rights, about feminism, about misogyny, without multiple asshats arriving to either make the thread about them or ask ‘what about the menz’. I can guarantee that if a racist atheist showed up, or a religiously bigoted atheist, the pushback would be just as hard (for an example, witness one of the semi-regulars who is quite good in most threads but loses his shit when Islam comes up — the pushback on that can derail threads quite effectively).

If atheism deems racism, sexism, economic inequality, homophobia and bigotry as acceptable it is, to me, worthless. Racism, sexism, economic inequality, homophobia and bigotry have strong roots within organized religion. God, in and of itself, is a harmless delusion. When the beliefs enforced by the religious apparatus of that god create economic and social inequality, it ceases to be a harmless delusion. God tells people who they can or must hate, or discriminate against. Why should atheists continue to hate, or discriminate against, the same people that religion says are unworthy, are not fully human, are meant to be slaves and servants?

The fight against misogyny is only one facet of Atheism+. Other social and economic discriminations are also fought where and when possible. But when one particular from keeps raising its ugly religious head, again and again, from within the atheist community far more often than other forms of discrimination, please understand that that is what will be fought most visibly.

Ogvorbis, that was an outstanding post. I’ll simply add that a reason the fight for equality and against systemic sexism and misogyny being front and center much of the time is that it’s our lives. For many of us, we don’t have the luxury of approaching such things as an academic exercise.

That should read: you have nothing to say about this. The sexism which has been revealed in the atheoskeptic communities is…not good, to say the very least. You’ll pardon the rest of us if we do have something to say about that. If you want to stick with “Imma dictionary atheist”, fine – go sit in the corner and shut the fuck up.

I understand that, however most rational objections to Watson was because of how she handled the situation between her and McGraw, it was inappropriate.

You’re full of shit. McGraw called Watson out on a public blog and it there was nothing wrong with Rebecca using it as an example of what she was talking about. There is no problem between Rebecca and Stef. Aside from all that, the 5,000+ plus posts on e-gate alone had nothing to do with that – it had to do with the rabid reaction to “guys, don’t do that.”

If atheism deems racism, sexism, economic inequality, homophobia and bigotry as acceptable it is, to me, worthless. Racism, sexism, economic inequality, homophobia and bigotry have strong roots within organized religion. God, in and of itself, is a harmless delusion. When the beliefs enforced by the religious apparatus of that god create economic and social inequality, it ceases to be a harmless delusion. God tells people who they can or must hate, or discriminate against. Why should atheists continue to hate, or discriminate against, the same people that religion says are unworthy, are not fully human, are meant to be slaves and servants?

And to add to that, atheism is about more than just not believing in gods. Atheism is, or should be, about removing the toxins, the poisons, that the disease of religion has left on human individuals and societies. If we attain atheism but retain all of the baggage of religion, we may as well have remained theists.

Ogvorbis, it would seem Cody is the type who is proud of contributing nothing outside the occasional spit of venom towards religion or other “proper” subjects. He wants to stick the rest of us in the humanist box and wants us out of the atheist box.

Is there much of a difference between humanism and atheism+? Maybe not. But I like that atheism+ makes being feminist, anti-racist, anti-homophobia [etc] explicit. And focuses it clearly as a “we are atheists, and we believe that atheism has lead us to these positions, because rationality.

(Also, humanism is not inherently an atheistic stance. There are lots of religious humanists).

I see that. I just don’t understand why anyone would want to be an atheist while retaining the worst vestiges of religion. If you are going to accept treating women, gays, children, etc. biblically, why bother with the atheism part? Why not just sign up with the Southern Baptists and not have to worry about whether it is okay to treat women, minorities, gays, children, the disabled, like shit?

I just don’t understand why anyone would want to be an atheist while retaining the worst vestiges of religion.

I think a lot of what we’re seeing is the howling over the loss of the Boys Club, which is basically what atheoskeptical groups have been until now. This is why we keep hearing about “proper” subjects to address, and don’t be tainting a good thing with all this “social justice” crap.

Give me a proof that shows that atheism in and by itself necessitates altruism.

I understand that we as human beings should help each other, but that’s not because of atheism. Atheism removes a justification for whatever people want to do, it doesn’t mean that since that justification is gone, we do X.

>And to add to that, atheism is about more than just not believing in gods.

No it’s not, now you’re delving into humanism and other ideological positions. I don’t disagree that we should help people understand how placing justification for actions into an unprovable idea is not only foolish, but dangerous.

>If we attain atheism but retain all of the baggage of religion, we may as well have remained theists.

You don’t get that Atheism+ is similar to what religion is, sans the supernatural, right? You already have humanism for that, no need for atheism+, it’s redundant.

>You’re full of shit. McGraw called Watson out on a public blog and it there was nothing wrong with Rebecca using it as an example of what she was talking about.

So it wasn’t inappropriate of Watson to use her podium and 15 minute fame to degrade a colleague? Ooh tell me more.

>You aren’t doing yourself any favours here by going with dishonesty.

It’s ironic most of your beliefs are about taking off the horse-blinders to see the bigger picture, then you put them back on when the reality becomes something you don’t want it to.

Watson’s ironic and hypocritical actions are another discussion though. You’re wanting to turn it into an “us-vs-them” mentality is also ironic, just like religion.

So, Cody, why do you have a problem with Atheist+ (Atheism plus a desire to eliminate the toxins of religious disease in the social and economic sphere) being a subset of atheism? If you want to be an atheist but let the rest of it sit by the wayside, who’s stopping you? Of course, if I, as an A+er, spot misogyny, or racism, or ablism, or any other form of discrimination, I’m going to speak up about it, but that’s not your problem, is it? Why do you get to decide what my atheism means to me?

Give me a proof that shows that atheism in and by itself necessitates altruism.

Sorry fuckwit, you give me proof that implicit in the rejection of gods, itsn’t also the rejection of bullshit in the holy books, like the severe misogyny in the babble. If you don’t want any part of atheism + feminism, go hide under a rock with the rest of the bully submen.

but that’s not because of atheism.

Actually it is implicit in my atheism. Who the fuck cares what you think? Try really thinking outside of a liberturd selfish mindset.

So it wasn’t inappropriate of Watson to use her podium and 15 minute fame to degrade a colleague.

To respond to public criticism with couple of sentences, no, it was not inappropriate. Why do you think the whole talk was about one item? You appear to be divorced from reality. it’s so nice to see you turn to that, then call yourself “rational”.You are the irrational one, not us. You don’t define anything for us, just yourself. A fool with delusions of adequacy.

>So, Cody, why do you have a problem with Atheist+ (Atheism plus a desire to eliminate the toxins of religious disease in the social and economic sphere) being a subset of atheism?

It’s not really a problem, but in my philosophy musings I always have wondered how we non-religious people tackle Hume’s Guillotine (The Is-Ought Problem).

I understand that objectively morality doesn’t exist and it troubles me, my want for helping people is to at least give them a better life, but on the flip side it makes me upset that I know that it’s mostly in vain for they die anyways, as do we all. There’s more to it than that, but I don’t think I’d have time to type it all out.

To me, A+ is just a fad, though a noble one that intends to make people happier. It more than likely will fade in obscurity, but hopefully it can do something good before it does, whatever it may be. It also makes me wonder if the fight for true equality is one in vain because, realistically speaking, it would probably never happen anyways, and would ironically violate the original principles of freethought.

>If you want to be an atheist but let the rest of it sit by the wayside, who’s stopping you?

Nothing would stop anyone, but I’m not using my atheism as the reason to lead me to be nice to people. That’s poor thinking and a bit absurd on its face, and it doesn’t fit in reality because I know many people who are religious that help other people.

>Why do you get to decide what my atheism means to me?

Why do you get to decide what anyone’s belief system or values, et al, mean to them? That’s what atheism+ is, do you not see you’re doing the exact same thing that despised you and lead you away from religion? What would your moral stance be if you were born 1000 years ago and not in a Westernized culture? I’d wager that it would be completely different.

Cody Herrmann, It has been some 18 months since “elevatorgate”. How come in all that time you have never once bothered to find out what it was about, and instead have chosen to pass on known falsehoods ?

Why do you get to decide what anyone’s belief system or values, et al, mean to them? That’s what atheism+ is, do you not see you’re doing the exact same thing that despised you and lead you away from religion? What would your moral stance be if you were born 1000 years ago and not in a Westernized culture? I’d wager that it would be completely different.

Bullshit. Who has told you that it is the A+ way or you don’t get to be an atheist? Yet you are telling me that my association of atheism with social and economic rights is wrong and I must cease.

Nothing would stop anyone, but I’m not using my atheism as the reason to lead me to be nice to people. That’s poor thinking and a bit absurd on its face, and it doesn’t fit in reality because I know many people who are religious that help other people.

At last something honest from you. You are right you are not using your atheism to be nice to people, since you are not nice. Nor are your fellow atheist MRAers.

>Sorry fuckwit you give me proof that implicit in the rejection of gods, itsn’t also the rejection of bullshit in the holy books

Way too easy, you’re rejection of a deity for justification for moral actions means you have to start fresh to justify a moral standard. This is basic philosophy 101, go back to learning how to structure an argument without injecting a fallacy.

>Actually it is implicit in my atheism. Who the fuck cares what you think? Try really thinking outside of a liberturd selfish mindset.

No, again it’s not. Keep deluding yourself “rationalist”. Keep propping up that strawman for the circlejerk.

>Why do you think the whole talk was about one item?

Not only did I not say that, it keeps amusing me that the keyboard warrior “rationalist” continue to turn to strawmen in order in order to purport their wit. I get better responses from the students I grade.

Better known as mental wanking. Do it offline, and wash up before you post online.

To me, A+ is just a fad, though a noble one that intends to make people happier.

Then why all the negativity toward it? You can ignore it. Why don’t you?

but I’m not using my atheism as the reason to lead me to be nice to people.

Implicit in this is that you can use atheism to be meaner to people since no deity is looking at you. You need to rethink your postitions.

That’s what atheism+ is,

What a fuckwitted unthinker. A+ is something one can join. There is no automatic membership implied with just being an atheist. This is MRA irrational thinking. I haven’t and won’t join as I don’t have time to contribute anything, but they have my support online otherwise.

Gee, I think you would fail the courses I taught. You and your ego have a problem with reality. Like I said above, until you say something cogent without attitude, there is no reason to take you seriously. Just another complainer saying “look at me”.

Way too easy, you’re rejection of a deity for justification for moral actions means you have to start fresh to justify a moral standard.

Actually Nerd and Oggie were rejecting a deity as justification for IMmoral actions. This is the fight you want to have, after saying this?

I understand that objectively morality doesn’t exist and it troubles me, my want for helping people is to at least give them a better life, but on the flip side it makes me upset that I know that it’s mostly in vain for they die anyways, as do we all.

As I understand it, being an atheist implies that wherever one gets one’s morality, it can’t come from deity-holy-book-bullshit sources. Being rational also means one’s morality shouldn’t come from NONreligious bullshit sources such as societal and personal biases, myths and lies.

Given all that, why is ‘atheism doesn’t imply a morality’ anything but a mildly interesting technicality? If you’re concerned about helping people, why is feminism excluded from that?

Why are you telling me that my atheism cannot include fighting the toxins left by the disease of religion in society in the form of misogyny, racist, and acceptance of social inequality? Why is your atheism the only one that anyone can possibly use? And why is fighting the toxins left by the disease of religion in society in the form of misogyny, racist, and acceptance of social inequality bad for atheists?

Look in the mirror. I don’t go attack people at other blogs like you are doing. You are attempting to impose your OPINION upon me. I see no justification to even consider your OPINION as anything other than bullshit, with the attitude and ego you have shown.

Just another neckbeard getting on an online forum to circlejerk to feel better.

Funny how irrational idjits with attitude always go the circle jerk route rather than just shutting the fuck up. If you can’t win with irrational arguments and attitude, try ridicule. Typical of MRAs and liberturds.

Popularity doesn’t induce truth, you might want to try again.

Truth is found with citations to evidence, not with your attitude or taking your word for anything.

Until you can give me a proof on how atheism necessitates altruism and bypasses Hume’s Guillotine, then you can go write that proof on a paper and win yourself a good prize in philosophy.

Mental wanking of that type is for losers. I just look at reality. Are people equal? Yep, its in the genome. Is there any logical reason to treat women or people of color differently? No. Is there any reason not to support the government in efforts to supply a safety net for its less fortunate citizens? No. Fuck mental wanking that goes nowhere. Which is why formal philosophy is held in high regard around here, as it isn’t necessarily based in reality.

Jesus Haploid Christ, some times it feels like someone fed an exceptionally limited set of ridiculously stupid antifeminist arguments to a Markov generator and turned it on every feminist site in the entirety of the interwebs.